GIFT   OF 


JEWISH  DISABILITIES  IN 
THE  BALKAN  STATES 

AMERICAN   CONTRIBUTIONS  TOWARD  THEIR 

REMOVAL,  WITH  PARTICULAR  REFERENCE 

TO   THE   CONGRESS   OF  BERLIN 

BY 

MAX  J.  KOHLER  AND  SIMON  WOLF 


A.  special  edition  of  Publications  of  the 
American  Jewijl  Eiztoj-ical  Societj 
24  ' 


NEW  YORK 

THE  AMERICAN  JEWISH  COMMITTEE 
1916 


BALTIMORE,  MD.,  U.  8.  A. 


PREFACE. 

The  present  work  arose  out  of  a  paper  prepared  by  Max  J. 
Kohler  and  Hon.  Simon  Wolf,  bearing  the  title  "  American 
Contributions  Toward  the  Removal  of  Jewish  Disabilities  in 
the  Balkan  States."  It  was  presented  by  Mr.  Kohler  at  the 
twenty-fourth  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Jewish  His- 
torical Society  held  at  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  on  February  20, 
1916.  Since  that  date  he  has  considerably  recast  it  and  some- 
what widened  the  scope  of  its  inquiry  so  as  to  conform  it  to 
the  new  title  under  which  it  is  now  submitted  to  the  public. 

The  subject-matter  of  this  volume  has  practical  importance 
as  well  as  historical  interest.  It  shows  that  the  disabilities  in 
some  of  the  Balkan  States  which  prevailed  prior  to  the  Berlin 
Congress  of  1878  were  removed;  that  the  United  States  more 
than  forty  years  ago,  when  its  power  and  importance  were 
much  less  than  at  present,  was  nevertheless  willing  to  make 
strenuous  exertions  on  the  grounds  of  humanity  in  the  interest 
of  oppressed  Jews  in  Eastern  Europe.  Unfortunately  the  efforts 
made  on  behalf  of  the  largest  population  of  Jews  settled  in  any 
Balkan  country,  namely,  Roumania,  were  without  result,  and 
the  conditions  in  Roumania  are  still  much  as  they  were  before 
Roumania  obtained  independence.  The  present  volume  may 
perhaps  assist  in  bringing  the  unfortunate  condition  of  the 
Jews  of  Roumania  to  the  attention  of  the  statesmen  and 
thinkers  of  the  world,  and  will  furnish  to  those  who  are  engaged 
in  the  struggle  for  full  rights  for  the  Jews  the  needed  informa- 
tion wherewith  to  conduct  their  fight  for  justice. 

The  publication  committee  charged  with  the  issuance  of  this 
volume  consists  of  Albert  M.  Friedenberg,  chairman;  Prof. 
Alexander  Marx  and  Dr.  A.  S.  W.  Rosenbach.  Because  of  the 
present-day  value  of  the  subject,  the  chairman  has  bent  his 
efforts  to  secure  a  prompt  publication  of  the  book.  An  extra 

iii 


printing  of  it  has  been  made  for  the  use  and  at  the  charge  of 
the  American  Jewish  Committee.  The  next  volume  of  our 
Publications,  No.  25,  to  comprise  the  usual  papers,  notes  and 
necrologies,  is  now  in  course  of  preparation  and  may  be 
expected  to  appear  with  all  convenient  speed. 

CYRUS  ABLER, 

President. 
PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  June  12,  1916. 


iv 


CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Preface    iii 

Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  American  Contribu- 
tions Toward  Their  Removal,  with  Particular  Reference 
to  the  Congress  of  Berlin.  Max  J.  Kohler  and  Simon  Wolf  1 

I.  Benjamin  F.  Peixotto's  Mission  to  Roumania 2 

II.  Three  International  Jewish  Conferences,  1872-1878 25 

III.  The  Congress  of  Berlin,  1878 40 

IV.  Secretary  Hay's  Roumanian  Note  of  1902  and  the  Peace 
Conference  of  Bucharest  of  1913 80 

Appendix  I.  Petition  of  the  Roumanian  Jews  to  the  Chamber 

of  Deputies;  1872  98 

Appendix  II.  Memorial  submitted  to  the  Conference  of  the 
European  Powers  at  Constantinople  by  the  Conference  of 
Israelites  held  at  Paris  (1876) 102 

Appendix  III.  Memorial  of  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle  of 
Paris  to  the  Congress  of  Berlin 105 

Appendix  IV.  Hon.  Oscar  S.  Straus'  Memoranda  Preceding 
Dispatch  of  the  Hay  Roumanian  Note 108 

Appendix  V.  The  Jews  of  Roumania  and  the  Treaty  of  Berlin. 
Extracts  from  an  address  by  the  Hon.  Walter  M.  Chandler, 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  114 

Appendix  VI.  Memorandum  on  the  Treaty  Rights  of  the  Jews 
of  Roumania  Presented  to  Sir  Edward  Grey  by  the  Lon- 
don Committee  of  Deputies  of  the  British  Jews  and  the 
Council  of  the  Anglo-Jewish  Association 137 

Index    ,  .  155 


JEWISH  DISABILITIES  IN  THE  BALKAN  STATES. 

AMERICAN    CONTRIBUTIONS    TOWARD    THEIR    REMOVAL, 

WITH   PARTICULAR  REFERENCE   TO  THE 

CONGRESS  OF  BERLIN.1 

BY  MAX  J.  KOHLEB  AND  SIMON  WOLF.2 

American  aid  towards  Jewish  emancipation  in  the  Balkan 
States  has  been  much  more  important  and  continuous  than  is 
generally  recognized,  and  it  constitutes  an  important  chapter 
in  the  history  of  international  endeavor  to  establish  religious 
liberty  all  over  the  world.  Moreover,  a  study  of  these  contribu- 
tions is  singularly  timely,  and  fraught  with  special  signifi- 
cance for  our  own  day,  for,  as  Bolingbroke  so  well  said,  "  His- 
tory is  philosophy  teaching  by  examples."  For  convenience, 
we  may  group  these  contributions  around  four  incidents :  (a) 
Benjamin  F.  Peixotto's  mission  to  Eoumania  as  U.  S.  Consul 
at  Bucharest;  (b)  three  International  Jewish  Conferences  held 
abroad  between  1872  and  1878,  largely  at  Peixotto's  instance, 
and  at  all  of  which  American  Jews  were  represented;  (c)  pro- 
vision on  behalf  of  the  persecuted  Jews  of  Eastern  Europe  at 
the  Berlin  Congress  of  1878,  which  was  in  turn  largely  pro- 

1 A  paper  presented  at  the  twenty-fourth  annual  meeting  of  the 
American  Jewish  Historical  Society,  Philadelphia,  February  20, 
1916. 

2  To  avoid  misunderstanding,  Mr.  Kohler  assumes  sole  responsi- 
bility for  this  study,  Mr.  Wolfs  share  having  been  to  place  valu- 
able unpublished  correspondence  at  Mr.  Kohler's  disposal,  and  to 
give  him  other  useful  information,  and  both  he  and  Mr.  Kohler, 
independently,  selected  this  subject.  Valuable  unpublished  mate- 
rial was  also  secured  from  Dr.  Cyrus  Adler,  Lewis  M.  Isaacs,  Louis 
Marshall,  Jacob  H.  Schiff,  Hon.  Oscar  S.  Straus,  and  through  the 
courtesy  of  Assistant  Secretary  Alvey  A.  Adee,  of  our  Department 
of  State. 

2  1 


2  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

moted  by  these  Jewish  conferences  and  to  which  our  own 
government  directly  contributed;  and  (d)  Secretary  Hay's 
Roumanian  Xote  of  August  11,  1902,  and  subsequent  events, 
including  the  Peace  Conference  of  Bucharest  of  1913.  All  four 
of  these  incidents  relate  chiefly  to  Roumania,  though  other 
Balkan  States,  particularly  Serbia  and  Bulgaria,  are  also 
involved. 

I. 
BENJAMIN  F.  PEIXOTTO'S  MISSION  TO  ROUMANIA. 

Peixotto's  mission  to  Roumania  is  unique  in  diplomatic 
history,  for  he  was  appointed  U.  S.  Consul  at  the  Roumanian 
capital  for  the  express  purpose,  and  accepted  the  post  avowedly, 
in  order  to  secure  an  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  Jews 
of  Roumania.  The  year  1870  was  signalized  by  shocking 
Roumanian  Jewish  persecutions,  which  stirred  the  whole  civil- 
ized world.  These  demonstrated  how  little  had  been  accom- 
plished, after  all,  by  the  illusory  promises  that  had  been  made 
by  Prince  Charles  of  Roumania  during  the  preceding  decade 
to  the  two  great  Jewish  philanthropists,  Adolphe  Cremieux 
and  Sir  Moses  Montefiore.  As  one  of  the  founders  of  that 
noble  international  Jewish  charitable  organization,  the  Alli- 
ance Israelite  Universelle,  Cremieux  had  personally  visited 
Roumania  some  years  before  this,  in  1866  and  again  in  1869, 
and  investigated  conditions  on  the  spot.  In  1867  the  venerable 
Sir  Moses  Montefiore  had  personally  appealed  to  the  Rou- 
manian Government,  on  behalf  of  his  coreligionists,  at  the  risk 
of  imminent  mob  violence,  as  was  then  freely  reported.  The 
English  and  French  Governments  had  made  strong  repre- 
sentations to  Roumania,  England  largely  at  the  instance  of  Sir 
Francis  Goldsmid,  France  on  Cremieux's  special  appeal. 
Napoleon  III,  in  1867,  had  even  telegraphed  to  Prince  Charles : 

I  must  not  leave  your  Highness  in  ignorance  of  the  public  feel- 
ing created  here  by  the  persecutions  of  which  the  Jews  of  Moldavia 
are  said  to  be  the  victims.  I  cannot  believe  that  the  enlightened 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  3 

Government  of  your  Highness  authorizes  measures  so  opposed  to 
humanity  and  civilization.3 

Under  these  conditions,  efforts  were  made  to  enlist  the 
active  intermediation  of  the  United  States  Government  on 
behalf  of  the  persecuted  Eoumanian  Jews,  which,  by  Secretary 
William  H.  Seward's  direction  already  in  1867  had  made 
representation  through  Minister  Morris  at  Constantinople,  at 
the  request  of  the  Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites, 
concerning  Eoumanian  and  Serbian  Jewish  persecutions.4  The 
able  and  intelligently  directed  efforts  of  the  United  States 
Government  on  behalf  of  Jewish  emancipation  in  Switzerland, 
especially  through  the  campaign  of  education  waged  there  by 
Minister  Fay,  had  contributed  greatly,  not  long  previously,  to 
securing  equality  of  rights  for  the  Jews  of  the  Swiss  Cantons.5 

*Aus  dem  Leben  Konig  Karls  von  Rumdnien,  Stuttgart,  1894- 
1900,  abridged  English  translation,  edited  by  S.  Whitman,  New 
York,  1899;  I.  Loeb,  La  Situation  des  Israelites  en  Turquie,  en 
Serbie  et  en  Roumanie,  Paris,  1877;  Great  Britain,  State  Papers, 
1877,  vol.  89:  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  Jews  in  Servia  and 
Roumania,  1867-76,"  359  pp.;  Hansard's  Debates,  third  series,  vol. 
191,  p.  1267.  See  Lord  Derby's  utterances  quoted  infra,  pp.  104, 
112;  also  appendices  V  and  VI,  pp.  114,  137. 

4 "  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1867,"  vol.  ii,  pp.  2, 
3,  9.  Cf.  "Great  Britain,  State  Papers,  1877,"  supra.  See  also 
Hansard's  Debates,  supra,  vol.  210,  pp.  1592,  1593;  D.  W.  Marks  and 
Albert  Lowy,  "  Memoir  of  Sir  Francis  Henry  Goldsmid,"  London, 
1879;  Bernard  Levy,  Die  Judenfrage  in  den  Donaufiirstenthiimern, 
Berlin,  [187?]. 

5  See  S.  M.  Stroock's  able  paper,  "  Switzerland  and  American 
Jews,"  in  Publications  of  the  American  Jewish  Historical  Society, 
No.  11,  p.  7  et  seq.,  which  should  be  supplemented  by  a  reference  to 
Holland's  rejection  of  a  commmercial  treaty  with  Switzerland, 
because  of  anti-Jewish  discriminations,  largely  in  consequence  of 
the  efforts  of  her  distinguished  Jewish  minister,  Michael  H. 
Godefroi.  ("The  Jewish  Encyclopedia,"  vol.  vi,  p.  16;  necrology 
by  Dr.  M.  Kayserling,  in  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judentums,  1882, 
p.  524.)  Mr.  Stroock  incidentally  emphasized  the  refusals  of 
France  and  England  to  permit  such  discriminations  against  their 


4  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Moreover,  even  previously,  in  1840,  our  government  had 
recognized  the  fact  that  its  absolutely  non-sectarian  character 
made  its  representations  on  behalf  of  foreign  victims  of 
religious  persecution  particularly  in  order,  and,  in  instructing 
our  Minister  at  Constantinople  to  use  his  good  offices  on  behalf 
of  Turkish  Jews  at  the  time  of  the  Damascus  blood  accusations, 
Secretary  Forsyth,  under  date  of  August  17,  1840,  used  these 
noble  words : ' 

The  President  [Martin  Van  Buren]  is  of  the  opinion  that  from 
no  one  can  such  generous  endeavors  proceed  with  so  much  pro- 
priety and  effect  as  from  the  representative  of  a  friendly  power, 
whose  institutions,  political  and  civil,  place  upon  the  same  footing, 
the  worshippers  of  God  of  every  faith  and  form,  acknowledging  no 

Jewish  subjects  by  Switzerland.  See  also  Arthur  K.  Kuhn's 
"  International  Law  and  the  Discriminations  Practiced  by  Russia 
under  the  Treaty  of  1832,"  Washington,  1911,  quoting  a  report 
made  to  the  French  Senate  on  Swiss  discriminations  against 
French  Jews,  in  which  a  commission  of  which  Ferdinand  de  Les- 
seps  was  Chairman,  reported  in  1864: 

"  No  discrimination  may  be  recognized  in  the  enjoyment  of  civil 
and  political  rights  between  a  French  Jew  and  a  French  Catholic  or 
Protestant.  This  equality  of  rights  must  also  follow  a  citizen 
beyond  the  frontier;  and  the  principles  of  our  Constitution  do  not 
authorize  the  Government  to  protect  its  subjects  in  a  different 
manner  according  to  which  faith  he  professes." 

This  and  other  precedents  (including  one  of  September,  1815, 
when  Metternich  acquiesced  in  Turkey's  claim  that  Ottoman  Jews 
should  not  be  treated  differently  than  other  Ottoman  subjects  by 
Austria,  because  Austria  treated  her  own  Jewish  subjects  differ- 
ently than  those  of  other  creeds)  were  reviewed  in  the  French 
Chamber  of  Deputies  on  December  27,  1909,  in  a  discussion  of 
Russian  discriminations  against  French  Jewish  citizens,  at  the 
conclusion  of  which  the  Minister  was  instructed  to  continue  nego- 
tiations to  stop  these  practices.  (Debats  parlementaires,  Paris, 
1909,  pp.  3763-80;  American  Jewish  Year  Book,  for  1911-1912,  pp. 
66-76.) 

a  Publications,  supra,  No.  9,  pp.  163-164;  see  ibid.,  No.  8,  pp.  141- 
145,  and  Dr.  Cyrus  Adler's  valuable  work  on  "  Jews  in  the  Diplo- 
matic Correspondence  of  the  United  States,"  ibid.,  No.  15,  pp.  4-6. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  5 

distinction  between  the  Mohammedan,  the  Jew  and  the  Christian. 
Should  you,  in  carrying  out  these  instructions,  find  it  necessary 
or  proper  to  address  yourself  to  any  of  the  Turkish  authorities, 
you  will  refer  to  this  distinctive  characteristic  of  our  government 
as  investing  with  a  peculiar  propriety  and  right,  the  interposition 
of  your  good  offices  in  behalf  of  an  oppressed  and  persecuted  race, 
among  whose  kindred  are  found  some  of  the  most  worthy  and 
patriotic  of  our  citizens.7 

7  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  during  the  very  first  decade  of 
our  existence  as  a  nation,  we  emphasized  this  non-sectarian  char- 
acter of  our  government  in  our  foreign  relations.  As  Oscar  S. 
Straus  aptly  points  out  in  an  address  on  "  Religious  Liberty  in  the 
United  States  "  in  his  volume,  "  The  American  Spirit,"  New  York, 
1913  (p.  264) :  "  On  November  4,  1796,  during  the  presidency  of 
Washington,  a  treaty  was  concluded  with  Tripoli,  which  was  rati- 
fied by  the  Senate  under  the  presidency  of  John  Adams,  on  June 
4,  1797,  wherein  it  is  provided:  'As  the  government  of  the 
United  States  is  not  in  any  sense  founded  on  the  Christian 
religion;  as  it  has  itself  no  character  of  enmity  against  the  laws, 
religion  or  tranquility  of  Mussulmen  ....  it  is  declared  by  the 
parties  that  no  pretext  arising  from  religious  opinions  shall  ever 
produce  an  interruption  of  harmony  existing  between  the  two 
countries.'  '  This  disclaimer  by  Washington,'  says  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel 
T.  Spear,  an  able  writer  on  constitutional  law,  'in  negotiating, 
and  by  the  Senate  in  confirming,  the  treaty  with  Tripoli,  was  not 
designed  to  disparage  the  Christian  religion,  or  indicate  any  hos- 
tility thereto,  but  to  set  forth  the  fact,  so  apparent  in  the  Con- 
stitution itself,  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  was  not 
founded  upon  that  religion  and  hence  did  not  embody  or  assert  any 
of  its  doctrines.'  "  Mr.  Straus,  ibid.,  also  quotes  the  utterances  of 
Thomas  F.  Bayard  when  Secretary  of  State,  that  "  religious  liberty 
is  the  chief  corner-stone  of  the  American  system  of  government, 
and  provisions  for  its  security  are  imbedded  in  the  written  charter 
and  interwoven  in  the  moral  fabric  of  our  laws.  Anything  that 
tends  to  invade  a  right  so  essential  and  sacred  must  be  carefully 
guarded  against,  and  I  am  satisfied  that  my  countrymen,  ever 
mindful  of  the  sufferings  and  sacrifices  necessary  to  obtain  it,  will 
never  consent  to  its  impairment  for  any  reason  or  under  any  pre- 
text whatever."  See,  also,  Mr.  Straus'  address  on  "  Humanitarian 
Diplomacy  of  the  United  States,"  in  the  same  work,  which  contains 
a  reference  to  the  provisions  of  the  Congress  of  Berlin  (p.  35),  and 


6  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

These  precedents  made  it  particularly  proper  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  to  lend  its  aid  in  1870,  when 
fresh  outbursts  of  anti-Semitic  persecution  in  Eoumania  were 
called  to  its  attention.  Accordingly,  we  learn  from  The  Jewish 

other  references  to  our  intercession  on  behalf  of  the  victims  of 
religious  persecution. 

It  was  merely  an  application  of  this  principle  that  led  to  our 
abrogation  of  our  treaty  with  Russia  in  December,  1911,  after 
many  years  of  negotiations  failed  to  induce  Russia  to  cease  denying 
to  American  citizens  of  the  Jewish  faith,  the  rights  conferred  there- 
under upon  all  our  citizens,  regardless  of  race  or  creed.  (See 
Hearings  before  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  December  11,  1911,  on  "  Termination  of  the 
Treaty  of  1832  between  the  United  States  and  Russia,"  [including 
addresses  at  Carnegie  Hall  Meeting  of  December  6,  1911]  336  pp.; 
62d  Congress,  2d  Session,  House  Report  No.  179  on  "  The  Abroga- 
tion of  the  Russian  Treaty";  and  U.  S.  Senate  Hearings  before 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  on  "  Treaty  of  1832  with  Russia," 
December  13,  1911,  50  pp. ;  "  The  Passport  Question,"  in  American 
Jewish  Year  Book,  for  1911-1912,  pp.  19-128;  ibid.,  for  1912-1913, 
pp.  196-210,  295-298;  Congressional  Record,  December,  1911.) 

An  admirable  outline  history  and  exposition  of  the  American 
principle  may  be  found  in  Rev.  Dr.  Philip  Schaff's  "  Church  and 
State  in  the  United  States"  (New  York,  1888).  In  a  paper  by 
David  Dudley  Field,  one  of  our  most  distinguished  American 
jurists  and  publicists,  on  "  American  Progress  in  Jurisprudence," 
read  at  the  World's  Fair  in  Chicago  in  1893,  published  in  American 
Law  Review,  vol.  xxvii,  p.  641,  and  quoted  in  Max  J.  Kohler's 
"  Phases  in  the  History  of  Religious  Liberty  in  America  with 
Special  Reference  to  the  Jews,"  in  Publications,  supra,  No.  11, 
p.  59,  it  was  said:  "  The  greatest  achievement  ever  made  in  the 
cause  of  human  progress  is  the  total  and  final  separation  of  the 
state  from  the  church.  If  we  had  nothing  else  to  boast  of,  we  could 
claim  with  justice  that  first  among  the  nations,  we  of  this  country 
made  it  an  article  of  organic  law  that  the  relations  between  man 
and  his  Maker  were  a  private  concern  into  which  other  men  had  no 
right  to  intrude.  To  measure  the  stride  thus  made  for  the  emanci- 
pation of  the  race,  we  have  only  to  look  back  over  the  centuries  that 
have  gone  before  us,  and  recall  the  dreadful  persecutions  in  the 
name  of  religion  which  have  filled  the  world  with  horror."  In  the 
article  last  cited,  an  effort  was  made  by  me  to  trace  the  effect  of 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  7 

Times  of  April  1,  1870,'  that  Simon  Wolf,  who  had  just 
received  stirring  appeals,  there  reprinted,  from  Adolphe  Cre- 
mieux,  as  President  of  the  Alliance,  on  behalf  of  persecuted 
European  Jews,  was 

American  religious  liberty,  and  particularly  of  the  emancipation 
of  the  Jews  in  America,  upon  the  establishment  of  religious  liberty 
in  France,  and  particularly  Jewish  emancipation  there.  While  the 
United  States  was  the  first  country  to  establish  both  religious 
liberty  and  complete  Jewish  emancipation  in  the  modern  world, 
France  was  a  close  second  in  both  respects,  though  a  large  measure 
of  religious  and  political  liberty  for  the  Jews  had  been  developed 
long  previously  in  Holland  and  England.  An  admirable  and  con- 
vincing study  of  the  indebtedness  of  the  French  Declaration  of 
Rights  of  1789  to  its  American  precedents,  and  particularly  to  the 
earliest  constitutions  adopted  by  the  American  states  immediately 
following  the  declaration  of  our  Revolutionary  War,  especially  as 
regards  religious  liberty  provisions,  is  to  be  found  in  Georg  Jelli- 
nek's  Die  Erklarung  der  Menschen-  und  Biirgerrechte,  2d  edition, 
Leipzig,  1903,  and  English  translation  by  M.  Farrand  entitled  "  The 
Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  of  Citizens,"  New  York, 
1901.  In  England,  Macaulay's  famous  Edinburgh  Review  essay  on 
"Civil  Disabilities  of  the  Jews"  (January,  1831),  referred  to  the 
good  results  of  America's  precedent  in  this  field,  and  Peixotto  had 
this  essay  translated  and  extensively  circulated  in  Roumania  in 
the  early  seventies.  Emilio  Castelar,  the  distinguished  Spanish 
statesman,  in  his  life  of  Columbus  (Century  Magazine,  1892,  p. 
589),  in  commenting  upon  the  fact  that  Columbus'  voyage  of  dis- 
covery began  at  the  very  time  that  the  Jews  were  expelled  from 
Spain,  refers  to  Columbus'  fleet  as  "  bound  in  search  of  another 
world,  whose  creation  should  be  new-born,  a  haven  be  afforded  to 
the  quickening  principle  of  human  liberty  and  a  temple  reared  to 

the  God  of  enfranchised  and  redeemed  conscience Following 

their  narrow  views,  the  powers  of  the  Middle  Ages  denied  even 
light  and  warmth  to  the  Jews  at  the  same  time  that  they  revealed 
a  new  creation  for  a  new  order  of  society,  that  was  predestined  by 
Providence  to  put  an  end  to  all  intolerance  and  to  dedicate  an 
infinite  continent  to  modern  democracy."  See  also  Francesco 
Ruffini's  "  Religious  Liberty,"  New  York,  1912,  and  Sir  Frederick 
Pollock's  "  Theory  of  Persecution,"  in  "  Essays  in  Jurisprudence 
and  Ethics,"  London,  1882.  M.  J.  K. 

8  Vol.  ii,  p.  70. 


8  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

about  to  bring  the  attention  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
to  the  deplorable  condition  of  our  brethren  in  Roumania,  and 
hoped  to  enlist  our  Government  in  their  behalf,  at  least  to  have 
our  consuls  instructed  to  use  their  influence  in  mitigation. 

In  the  following  May,  Mr.  Wolf  reported  at  the  annual  meet- 
ing of  the  Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites 9  that  he 
had  called  on  President  Grant  in  reference  to  Roumanian 
Jewish  persecutions,  and  that  Adolph  Buchner,  a  Jewish  resi- 
dent of  Bucharest,  who  had  served  as  secretary  to  the  former 
United  States  Consul,  would  be  appointed  United  States  Con- 
sul there,  and  be  instructed  to  look  into  the  matter  of  Rouma- 
nian Jewish  persecutions.  On  June  3,  1870,10  Mr.  Wolf  called 
on  the  Secretary  of  State,  who  deplored  the  news  of  fresh  Rou- 
manian Jewish  persecutions,  which  had  just  been  published, 
and  Mr.  Wolf  brought  these  reports  to  the  attention  of  every 
member  of  Congress,  and  particularly  to  Charles  Sumner's,  who 
was  then  Chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Rela- 
tions, urging  prompt  legislative  action,  in  accord  with  our  pre- 
cedents. Numerous  mass  meetings  had  been  held  about  this 
period  throughout  the  United  States,  and  Congressional  action 
urged.  Sumner  offered  a  resolution  of  inquiry,  directed  to  the 
President,  which  was  adopted,  and  expressed  the  hope  that  the 
reports  would  prove  to  be  exaggerated,  and  added  these  strik- 
ing words : 

It  is  important,  however,  it  seems  to  me,  in  the  interest  of 
humanity  and  in  that  guardianship  of  humanity  which  belongs  to 
the  great  Republic,  that  we  should  possess  ourselves  at  once  of  all 
the  information  attainable  on  the  subject." 

In  the  House,  Mr.  Winchester  offered  the  following  reso- 
lution : " 

Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Representatives  learns  with  pro- 
found regret  and  disapproval  of  the  gross  violations  of  the  great 

9  Ibid.,  p.  201. 

10  Ibid.,  p.  229. 

n  Congressional   Globe,   41st   Congress,   2d   Session,   Ft.    5,   pp. 
4044-45. 
13  Ibid.,  p.  4062. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  9 

principle  of  religious  liberty  by  some  of  the  people  of  the  province 
of  Roumania  in  Turkey,  in  their  late  persecutions  and  outrages 
against  the  Israelites,  and  hereby  expresses  the  earnest  hope  that 
they  will  speedily  cease. 

Fortunately,  the  early  reports,  which  referred  to  thousands 
of  Jews  as  having  just  been  massacred  in  Koumania,  proved  to 
be  exaggerated,  and  President  Grant  transmitted  a  letter  from 
the  Secretary  of  State,  in  answer  to  the  Senate  inquiry,  stating 
he  had  no  official  information.18 

On  June  17,  1870,  The  Jewish  Times  announced  the  with- 
drawal by  President  Grant  of  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Buchner 
as  Consul,  and  the  substitution  of  the  name  of  Benjamin  F. 
Peixotto.14  Early  in  the  year  1870,  Mr.  Peixotto  had  received 
an  earnest  appeal  from  Cremieux  to  aid  the  famine-stricken 
Jews  of  Russia,  the  letter  having  been  addressed  to  him  under 
the  mistaken  impression  that  he  was  still  Grand  Master  of  the 
Independent  Order  of  B'nai  B'rith,15  and  it  is  probable  that 
Cremieux's  unconscious  influence  was  felt,  in  impelling  him  to 
assume  the  ordeal  of  the  Bucharest  consulate. 

A  private,  unpublished  letter  dated  San  Francisco,  June  28, 
1870,  from  Peixotto  to  Simon  Wolf  eloquently  outlines  Pei- 
xotto's  purposes  in  accepting  the  mission,  and  refers  to 
Peixotto's  earlier  letter  to  Wolf,  which  led  to  his  appointment. 
Some  excerpts  from  this  letter,  following  the  appointment,  are 
pregnant  with  meaning.  Peixotto  wrote : 

Heaven  hath  not  placed  it  in  my  power  to  show  the  extent  of  the 
sacrifice  I  would  make  for  suffering  humanity,  for  persecuted 
Israel.  Were  I  possessed  of  fortune  and  luxurious  home,  then  to 
go  to  Bucharest  would  be  still  greater  proof  of  my  devotion.  But 

13  Richardson's  "  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,"  Wash- 
ington, 1898,  vol.  vii,  p.  63. 

14  See  sketches  of  Benj.  F.  Peixotto  in  Markens'  "  Hebrews  in 
America,"  New  York,  1888,  and  "The  Jewish  Encyclopedia";  Dr. 
Adolf  Stern's  Denkrede  uber  Benj.  F.  Peixotto,  Bucharest,  1891, 
translated  from  the  Roumanian,  and  memorial  addresses  in  The 
Menorah,  vol.  ix,  1890,  p.  336  et  seq. 

16  The  Jewish  Times,  vol.  i,  Ferbuary  11,  1870. 


10  American  Jewish  Historical,  Society. 

even  as  it  is,  it  is  no  trifle,  for  here  in  California,  I  have  found 
many  warm  and  true,  though  new,  friends,  and  my  prospects  for 
the  future  are  most  promising,  and  though  the  immediate  present 
bears  no  fruit,  I  feel  that  with  time  the  seed  will  bear  and  the 
reaping  be  not  in  vain.  Nay,  probably  every  true  friend  I  have  in 
America  to-day  would  persuade  me  to  remain  in  this  land  of 
liberty  and  hope,  and  not  go  an  exile  to  regions  of  despotism  and  a 
land  of  darkness,  especially  among  my  own  people  who  are  doubt- 
less sunk  in  depths  of  superstition  and  wedded  to  forms — a  hand 
people — in  truth  letters  have  come  to  me  expostulating — begging 
me  not  to  dream  of  going,  &c.  But  none  of  these  and  few  among 
the  countless  thousands  who  may  have  read  the  dispatch  in  the 
daily  papers,  can  appreciate  my  motive.  Mine  in  wishing  to  go, 
yours  in  obtaining  the  appointment.  Surely  you  would  not  have 
done  this  thing,  if  your  soul  had  not  been  in  unison  with  mine. 
Thank  God,  all  heroism  is  not  dead.  Thank  God!  there  still  lives 
in  the  world  the  sublime  principle  of  unselfishness,  springing  from 

love  and  patriotism 

The  many  poor  Jews  must  be  assisted  with  money  and  counsel — 
thus  they  will  learn  to  love  me  and  through  me  that  religious 
liberty  of  which  as  an  Israelite,  I  am  a  type.  Schools,  &  la  Alli- 
ance Israelite,  must  be  planted  throughout  Roumania,  and  modern 
education,  liberalizing  thought  and  hopes  beyond  the  mere 
present,  introduced.  We  can  commence  and  by  degrees  make 
these  schools  powerful  instrumentalities  for  revolutionizing  the 
social  and  religious  life  of  our  people  and  effectually  securing 
their  civil  and  political  rights.  There,  now  you  have  the  object 
of  my  mission.  Were  I  to  write  folios  they  would  contain  but 
repetitions  of  this  thought.  The  salvation  of  the  people  of  Israel 
in  all  countries  where  despotism  rules,  lies  in  the  emancipation 
from  the  superstitions,  forms  and  ceremonies  of  the  past,  their 
moral,  social  and  religious  reform  and  elevation,  and  the  only 
positively  effectual  means  to  accomplish  this  salvation  is  by  the 
introduction  of  schools,  the  sowing  the  seed  of  modern  thought, 
which  in  its  germs  carries  the  light  of  liberty,  the  new  life  of 
mental  freedom,  social  elevation  and  equality  or  the  hope  thereof. 
There  is  to  me  nothing  humiliating  in  being  thus  sus- 
tained since  our  Government  affords  no  adequate  means  to  sustain 
its  civil-international  representative.  Ours  is  not  a  government 
that  concerns  itself  with  the  political  misfortunes  of  the  peoples 
of  other  lands.  It  cannot.  It  can  only  put  its  representative  in  a 
sort  of  semi-civil  commercial  international  position.  Therefore 
it  becomes  those  who  would  aid  the  suffering  people  of  Roumania, 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  11 

to  make  the  office  of  the  Government  representative,  effective  for 
good.  I  think  you  will  fully  understand  and  correctly  interpret 
my  view.  It  is  not  me,  you  must  understand,  whom  they  sustain — 
it  is  the  cause.  If  God  gives  me  strength  to  serve  that  cause,  it  is  a 
threefold  blessing.  So — you  now  must  realize  my  position.  To 
go  to  Roumania  without  the  means  of  doing  good  would  be  like 
uttering  words  of  commiseration,  but  being  helpless  to  effect  relief. 
I  await  events,  ready  to  bear  what  may  be  the  will  of  Him  who 
I  believe  designs  and  fashions  what  is  best.  Let  me  only  say  your 
part  in  this  work  was  not  ended  when  the  appointment  was  ob- 
tained. Put  not  a  barren  sceptre  in  my  hand.  It  is  your  duty  to 
make  good  the  appointment  you  have  secured,  to  get  it  confirmed. 
Mr.  Seligman  has  telegraphed  Senators  Cole  and  Casserly  from  his 
own  prompting;  would  have  been  done  so  10  days  ago  but  supposed 
you  would  have  no  difficulty  securing  the  confirmation. 

Before  Peixotto  left  on  his  mission  (which  had  no  emolu- 
ments connected  with  it) ,  Mr.  Jesse  Seligman  took  the  lead  in 
collecting  funds  to  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  new  Consul, 
in  order  to  enable  him  to  carry  out  his  very  elaborate  plans  for 
Eoumanian  Jewish  relief;  correspondence  on  this  subject  ap- 
peared in  The  Jewish  Times."  This  appeal  led  to  the  organiza- 
tion in  December,  1870,  in  New  York  City,  of  the  American 
Eoumanian  Society,  with  Joseph  Seligman  as  President, 
Barnett  L.  Salomon,  Vice-President,  Adolph  Hallgarten,  Sec- 
retary, and  Lazarus  Eosenfeld,  Treasurer,  and  this  society, 
and  the  Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Iraelites,  together 
with  the  Independent  Order  B'nai  B'rith  (the  last  to  an 
even  greater  extent)  raised  the  funds  requisite  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  agencies  organized  by  the  "  Consul  Missionary," 
during  his  five  years'  services."  The  I.  0.  B.  B.  lodges,  during 
a  series  of  years,  raised  funds  for  this  undertaking,  largely  on 
Mr.  Wolf's  personal  appeal  throughout  the  country.  It  is  to 
be  regretted  that  letters  received  by  Dr.  Max  Lilienthal  at  this 
period  from  Senators  Carl  Schurz  and  Sumner  regarding  this 
mission  18  have  apparently  not  been  preserved. 


18  Vol.  ii,  1870,  pp.  390-391,  405. 
17  Ibid.,  pp.  662,  651  et  seq. 
™  Ibid.,  p.  312. 


12  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  we  may  conveniently  turn  to  Mr. 
Peixotto's  own  narrative  in  The  Menorah™  written  many  years 
later,  beginning  in  1886,  entitled  "  Story  of  the  Eoumanian 
Mission,"  which  unfortunately,  however,  ended  abruptly  with- 
out explanation,  in  narrating  the  early  stages  of  the  mission.20 
His  personal  correspondence  of  the  period  with  Mr.  Wolf 
and  the  Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites,21  both 
largely  extant,  supplements  and  extends  the  narrative,  how- 
ever, as  do  also  the  files  of  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of 
our  Government  and  of  Great  Britain's,  above  cited,  and  the 
Jewish  newspapers  of  the  day,  especially  The  Jewish  Times, 
and  this  is  particularly  true  of  the  able  and  interesting  Memo- 
rial Address,  delivered  soon  after  Peixotto's  death,  by  Dr. 
Adolf  Stern,  of  Bucharest,  who  served  as  his  secretary  during 
his  consulate. 

Peixotto,  near  the  beginning  of  his  narrative,  quotes  Presi- 
dent Grant's  sympathetic  words  to  him  before  he  left  on  his 
mission,  as  follows : 22 

Respect  for  human  rights  is  the  first  duty  of  those  set  as  rulers 
over  nations,  and  the  humbler,  poorer,  more  abject  and  more 
miserable  a  people  be,  be  they  black  or  white,  Jew  or  Christian,  the 
greater  should  be  the  concern  of  those  in  authority,  to  extend 
protection,  to  rescue  and  redeem  them  and  raise  them  up  to 
equality  with  the  most  enlightened.  The  story  of  the  sufferings 

19  Vol.  i,  p.  22  et  seq. 

20  Vol.  iv,  1888,  p.  430. 

21  Through  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Lewis  M.  Isaacs  I  have  been 
enabled  to  examine  the  files  of  the  Board  of  Delegates  of  American 
Israelites,  of  which  his  father,  the  late  Hon.  Myer  S.  Isaacs,  was 
Secretary  for  many  years.     These  include  numerous  interesting 
letters  from  Peixotto  to  the  Board  and  to  Judge  Isaacs  personally, 
and  related  letters  from  Cr6mieux,  Isidore  Loeb,  Sir  Moses  Monte- 
fiore,   Sir  Francis  Goldsmid,   Dr.   A.   Benisch,  Ritter  Josef  von 
Wertheimer,    Isaac    Seligman,    Joseph    Seligman,    Julius    Bleich- 
roeder,  Charles  Netter,  Narcisse  Leven,  Adolph  Buchner,  Simon 
Wolf    and    Adolphus    S.    Solomons,    besides    excerpts    from    the 
Rumdnische  Post.    Unfortunately  it  appears  that  Peixotto's  corre- 
spondence with  the  Seligman  family  has  not  been  preserved. 

22  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  26. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  13 

of  the  Hebrews  of  Roumania  profoundly  touches  every  sensi- 
bility of  our  nature.  It  is  one  long  series  of  outrage  and  wrong; 
and  even  if  there  be  exaggeration  in  the  accounts  which  have 
reached  us,  enough  is  evident  to  prove  the  imperative  duty  of  all 
civilized  nations  extending  their  moral  aid  in  behalf  of  a  people 
so  unhappy.  I  trust  Prince  Charles  and  his  ministers  and  the 
public  men  of  that  country,  may  be  brought  to  see  that  the  future 
of  their  nation  lies  in  a  direction  totally  opposite  to  those  Draconic 
laws  and  persecutions,  whether  great  or  petty,  which  have  hitherto 
so  invidiously  marked  its  character.  It  is  not  by  Chinese  walls 
or  Spanish  expatriations  that  nations,  great  or  small,  can  hope 
to  make  progress  in  our  day.  I  have  no  doubt  your  presence  and 
influence,  together  with  the  efforts  of  your  colleagues  of  the 
Guaranteeing  Powers,  with  whom  in  this  matter  you  will  always 
be  prompt  to  act,  will  result  in  mitigating  the  evils  complained 
of,  and  end  in  terminating  them.  The  United  States,  knowing  no 
distinction  between  her  own  citizens  on  account  of  religion  or 
nativity,  naturally  believes  in  a  civilization  the  world  over,  which 
will  secure  the  same  universal  views. 

President  Grant  also  gave  him  a  letter,  written  with  his  own 
hand  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Peixotto  and  Mr.  Wolf,  which 
Peixotto  later  exhibited  to  the  ruler  of  Eoumania,  reading  as 
follows : 23 

EXECUTIVE  MANSION, 

Washington,  D.  C., 

December  8,  1870. 

The  bearer  of  this  letter,  Mr.  Benjamin  Peixotto,  who  has 
accepted  the  important,  though  unremunerative  position  of  U.  S. 
Consul  to  Roumania,  is  commended  to  the  good  offices  of  all 
representatives  of  this  Government  abroad. 

Mr.  Peixotto  has  undertaken  the  duties  of  his  present  office 
more  as  a  missionary  work  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  he  repre- 
sents, than  for  any  benefit  to  accrue  to  himself — a  work  in  which 
all  citizens  will  wish  him  the  greatest  success.  The  United  States, 
knowing  no  distinction  of  her  own  citizens  on  account  of  religion 
or  nativity,  naturally  believes  in  a  civilization  the  world  over, 
which  will  secure  the  same  universal  views. 

U.  S.  GRANT. 

In  the  course  of  a  lecture  entitled  "  What  Shall  We  Do  With 
Our  Immigrants?"  delivered  and  published  in  1887,  Mr. 

23  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  250. 


14  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Peixotto  records  the  following  interesting  conversation  had  by 
him  with  Prince  Charles : 

Once,  when  I  was  speaking  with  the  Prince,  now  King  of  Rou- 
mania,  he  asked  me  why  it  was  that  the  Jews  of  Roumania  could 
not  be  like  those  of  England  and  America.  "  These  people,"  he 
said,  "  seem  to  be  so  very  low,  and  yet,"  he  added,  "  it  is  curious, 
they  are  the  best  pupils  in  our  public  schools,  and  they  are  the 
brightest  in  all  the  professions  to  which  they  are  admitted,  and 
still  look  at  them;  see  how  grovelling  and  base  they  be,"  and  when 
I  directed  the  attention  of  his  Highness  to  the  fact  that  only  in 
those  countries  where  equality  and  liberty  exist,  the  inhabitants 
show  very  little  distinction,  and  also  directed  his  attention  to  the 
fact  that  our  country  was  a  free  country,  and  that  men  coming 
from  Russia  or  Roumania,  or  from  any  other  country  of  the  earth, 
soon  cast  off  old  customs  and  became  assimilated  with  the  nation, 
and  progressed  with  the  moving  tide  of  progress  and  science,  he 
changed  the  subject,  and  said:  "And  you  intend  to  go,  Mr. 
Consul,  into  the  interior?"  I  said  "Yes."  "Oh,  I  will  give  you 
an  escort,  you  shall  have  a  body-guard  to  go  with  you  through  the 
Provinces,  and  you  shall  see  the  true  condition  of  these  people." 
To  which  I  replied:  "I  will  not  take  a  body-guard.  I  will  go 
alone;  I  wish  to  see  with  my  own  eyes,  their  condition,  and  see 
whether  it  be  true  or  not  as  to  their  treatment."  So  I  went  and 
found  their  condition  to  be  deplorable  past  all  words,  and  yet  I 
tell  you  here  to-night  that  the  Israelites  in  Roumania,  Russia  and 
Poland  are  as  good  and  worthy  people  as  the  Israelites  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  making  every  reservation  in  regard  to 
their  culture  and  associations  and  the  conditions  under  which 
they  live. 

Less  than  a  year  after  Peixotto's  arrival  at  Bucharest,  on 
June  5, 1872,  an  incident  occurred,  which  caused  serious  injury 
to  the  Jews  of  Roumania ;  this  was  a  theft  and  profanation  at 
the  church  at  Ismail,  Roumania,  committed  by  an  apostate 
Jew,  named  Jacob  Silberman.  When  arrested,  and  again  on  his 
trial,  Silberman  confessed  that  he  alone  was  guilty,  but  under 
the  influence  of  frightful  torture,  he  implicated  his  employer 
and  two  other  Jews,  and,  again,  on  a  subsequent  occasion,  also 
the  local  rabbi,  named  Alter  Brandeis,  and  the  president  of  the 
congregation,  David  Goldschlager,2*  claiming  that  they  had 

24  IUd.,  vol.  iii,  p.  399  et  seq. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  15 

instigated  the  crimes.  These  unfortunates  were  all  arrested, 
and  horribly  maltreated,  and  mobs  fell  upon  the  other  hapless 
Jewish  inhabitants  of  Ismail,  pillaging,  wounding  and  robbing 
them  for  three  days,  several  towns  following  suit  in  the  rioting. 
Peixotto  at  once  intervened,  and  at  his  request  Goldschlager 
was  liberated,  and  Brandeis  was  released  at  the  instance  of  the 
Austrian  Consul-General  as  an  Austrian  subject.  At  the  re- 
quest of  the  foreign  consuls,  the  chief  rioters  were  in  turn 
arrested.  The  Government,  however,  ordered  even  these  Jews, 
after  some  interval,  to  stand  trial,  and  they  were  brought  before 
a  jury  at  Buzeo.  Although  Silberman  again  admitted  his 
guilt,  and  exonerated  all  his  codefendants,  and  there  was  no 
evidence  worthy  of  the  name  against  the  other  defendants, 
the  Attorney-General  expressly  conceding  their  innocence  and 
asking  for  their  acquittal,25  the  farcical  trial  resulted  in  a 
verdict  of  guilty  against  all  the  defendants  and  prison  sen- 
tences were  pronounced.  The  case  has  become  a  cause  celebre, 
and  the  account  of  the  trial  has  been  published  in  separate 
pamphlet  form  in  several  languages,  including  English.  On 
the  other  hand,  all  the  rioters  were  acquitted.  The  foreign 
consuls,  with  the  exception  of  the  Russian,  jointly  signed  a 
vigorous  protest  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  through 
Peixotto's  influence,  against  such  grave  injustice,  all  the  more 
dangerous  because  of  the  approaching  Passover  holidays,  which 

25  A  contemporaneous  Jewish  MS.  review  of  this  Silberman  crime 
is  before  me,  indicating  that  the  entire  incident  arose  through 
Russian  intrigue,  fomented  for  the  double  purpose  of  injuring  the 
Jews  and  the  administration  of  Prince  Charles.  Silberman,  a 
Russian  subject,  had  just  left  the  army  and  was  employed  to  com- 
mit this  offence  for  these  sinister  purposes.  Some  such  idea  was 
also  suggested  in  a  contemporaneous  discussion  of  the  case  by  Sir 
Francis  Goldsmid  and  Serjeant  (afterwards  Sir)  John  Simon  in 
the  English  House  of  Commons.  Hansard's  Debates,  supra,  vol. 
210,  pp.  1589-1592,  1597-1599,  1601-1603.  See  Peixotto's  account, 
The  Menorah,  vol.  iii,  pp.  398-409;  vol.  iv,  pp.  58-60,  288-293,  340- 
350,  424-430;  "  The  Jews  in  Roumania.  Account  of  the  Proceedings 
of  the  Trial  of  the  Jews  at  Busen,"  London,  1874;  and  British  State 
Papers  cited  in  note  3,  supra 


16  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

have  so  often  become  periods  for  anti-Semitic  riot.  The 
various  foreign  governments,  including  our  own  (the  latter 
through  a  message  from  Secretary  Hamilton  Fish,  dated  April 
10,  1872,  quoted  infra),  approved  the  action  of  their  consuls 
in  making  representations  in  the  matter,  and  the  impending 
riots  were  averted. 

The  debate  in  the  German  Eeichstag  was  particularly  vigor- 
ous, a  resolution  of  protest,  offered  by  Deputy  Ludwig  Bam- 
berger,  and  strongly  supported  by  Eduard  Lasker,  being 
adopted  in  May,  1872.28  In  England,  Sir  Francis  Goldsmid 
brought  up  the  subject  in  a  stirring  speech  in  the  House  of 
Commons  in  April,  1872,"  and  a  very  important  and  fiery 
Mansion  House  meeting  was  held  May  30,  1872,  at  which  the 
Lord  Mayor  of  London  presided,  and  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury 
delivered  a  rousing  speech,  as  did  also  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester 
and  others.28  Earl  Granville,  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  proposed  a  conference  of  the  Powers  regarding  these 
Eoumanian  Jewish  persecutions,  the  Balkan  States  having 
been,  even  prior  to  the  Congress  of  Berlin  of  1878,  under  the 
protection  of  the  Great  Powers,  though  nominally  still  Turkish 
dependencies.29  Italy  seconded  England's  suggestion,  which 
France  also  favored,  but  Eussia  opposed,  suggesting  a  joint 
note  instead,  and  no  conference  was  held.  On  motion  of  Con- 
gressman Samuel  S.  Cox  of  New  York,  our  House  of  Eepre- 
sentatives  unanimously  passed  a  resolution  on  May  20,  1872 : 

That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  respectfully  requested 
to  join  with  the  Italian  government  in  the  protest  against  the 
Intolerant  and  cruel  treatment  of  the  Jews  of  Roumania.80 

28  Aus  dent  Leben  Konig  Karls,  vol.  ii,  p.  265;  Allgemeine  Zei- 
tung  des  Judentums,  1872,  pp.  447-8.  The  Dutch  Government  also 
took  action,  Loeb,  supra,  pp.  361-2. 

"The  Jewish  Times,  vol.  iv,  p.  226;  Hansard's  Debates,  supra, 
pp.  1595-1604. 

28  The  Jewish  Times,  vol.  iv,  p.  325,  reprinting  addresses  from 
The  Jeivish  Chronicle;  see  infra,  p.  112. 

29  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  308,  and  British  State  Papers,  supra. 

30  Congressional  Globe,  42d  Congress,  2d  Session,  p.  3655. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  17 

Both  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  adopted 
resolutions,  requesting  the  President  to  furnish  information  in 
March  and  May,  1872,  which  was  done  in  published  Con- 
gressional Documents,  supplementing  our  published  Foreign 
Eelations  for  1872.31  In  answer  to  the  House  resolution  offered 
by  Congressman  Cox,  Secretary  Hamilton  Fish  reported  that 
our  Consul  had  already  previously 

in  common  with  the  representatives  of  other  powers,  addressed  a 
note  of  remonstrance  to  the  [Roumanian]  minister,  and  more  re- 
cently united  with  the  representatives  of  those  powers  (Italy 
being  included),  in  a  collective  note  to  the  Roumanian  govern- 
ment, bearing  date  April  18,  1872,  on  the  subject  of  these  recent 
occurrences,  and  pointing  out  with  marked  but  just  severity,  to 
the  impunity  which  had  been  enjoyed  by  the  perpetrators  of  the 
violence,  which  it  characterized  appropriately  as  unworthy  of  a 
civilized  country.32 

A  number  of  detailed  reports  from  Consul  Peixotto,  despatched 
in  1871  and  1872,  were  thus  printed  as  early  as  1872  by  our 
Government.  Already  on  October  5,  1871,  Mr.  Peixotto  was 
able  to  report — what  was  true  during  the  whole  of  his  mission, 
with  the  exception  of  the  riots  of  1872,  above  referred  to — that 

the  sentiments  of  humanity  he  [the  Prince  of  Roumania]  was 
pleased  to  express,  have  been  practically  carried  out  in  a  more 
zealous  regard  for,  and  protection  of,  the  rights  of  the  oppressed 
Israelites.  While  it  has  been  impossible  to  restrain  prejudices 
fostered  by  designing  men,  mostly  for  political  ends  and  in  many 
instances  for  the  purposes  of  robbery,  every  attempt  at  open  vio- 
lence has  been  promptly  quelled,  and  effective  measures  taken  to 
prevent  outrage.33 

On  April  10,  1872,  Secretary  Fish  addressed  the  following 
dispatch  to  Consul  Peixotto :  M 

31  Richardson,  supra,  pp.  167,  168;  House  Executive  Documents, 
1872,  42d  Congress,  2d  Session,  No.  318,  and  Senate  Document  No. 
75  of  same  session. 

32  House  Executive  Documents,  supra. 

33  Senate  Document,  supra. 


18  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  April  10,  1872. 
SIB: 

Among  the  large  number  of  Israelites  in  this  country,  there  are 
probably  few  whose  sympathies  have  not  been  intensely  excited 
by  the  recent  intelligence  of  the  grievous  persecutions  of  their 
coreligionists  in  Roumania.  This  feeling  has  naturally  been  aug- 
mented by  the  contrast  presented  by  the  position  of  members  of 
that  persuasion  here,  who  are  equals  with  all  others  before  the  law, 
which  sternly  forbids  any  oppression  on  account  of  religion.  In- 
deed, it  may  be  said  that  the  people  of  this  country  universally 
abhor  persecution  anywhere  for  that  cause,  and  deprecate  the 
trials  of  which,  according  to  your  dispatches,  the  Israelites  of 
Roumania  have  been  the  victims. 

This  Government  heartily  sympathizes  with  the  popular  instinct 
upon  the  subject,  and  while  it  has  no  disposition  or  intention  to 
give  offense  by  impertinently  interfering  in  the  internal  affairs  of 
Roumania,  it  is  deemed  to  be  due  to  humanity  to  remonstrate 
against  any  license  or  impunity  which  may  have  attended  the  out- 
rages in  that  country.  You  are  consequently  authorized  to  address 
a  note  to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  of  the  principalities,  in 
which  you  will  embody  the  views  herein  expressed,  and  you  will 
also  do  anything  which  you  discreetly  can,  with  a  reasonable  pros- 
pect of  success,  toward  preventing  a  recurrence  or  continuance  of 
the  persecution  adverted  to. 

HAMILTON  FISH. 

On  April  18, 1872,  the  foreign  Consuls  (except  the  Russian) 
at  Bucharest,  at  Peixotto's  instance,  joined  in  the  following 
note : 35 

The  undersigned  deem  it  their  duty  to  address  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Prince,  collectively,  and  in  the  most  formal  manner, 
the  verbal  observations,  which  most  of  them  have  been  ordered  by 
their  governments  to  present  to  it  in  relation  to  the  Israelite  ques- 
tion. They  cannot,  in  the  first  place,  help  expressing  their  aston- 
ishment that  the  result  of  the  investigation,  ordered  in  Roumanian 
Bessarabia  more  than  two  months  since,  has  not  yet  been  com- 
municated to  them,  notwithstanding  the  assurance  contained  in 
the  note  of  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  bearing  the  date  of  the 
7-19th  of  February  last. 


Ibid. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  19 

They  have,  moreover,  learned  with  profound  regret,  that,  after 
having  condemned  several  Israelites  to  severe  penalties,  the  prose- 
cution of  whom  was  abandoned  by  the  public  ministry  itself,  the 
court  assizes  at  Buzeo  has  acquitted  all  the  individuals  who  were 
charged  with  having  ccmmitted  the  gravest  excesses  and  crimes 
against  the  Jewish  population  of  the  town  of  Vilcova.  The  under- 
signed see  in  this  double  verdict,  an  indication  of  the  dangers  to 
which  the  Israelites  are  exposed  in  Roumania,  the  imminence  of 
which,  at  the  approach  of  the  Easter  holidays,  justified  the  steps 
recently  taken  by  them  simultaneously  near  the  government  of 
the  Prince. 

The  governments  of  the  undersigned  will  judge  whether  the 
impunity  which  has  been  enjoyed  by  the  assailants  of  the  Jews  is 
not  of  a  nature  to  encourage  a  repetition  of  the  scenes  of  violence 
quite  unworthy  of  a  civilized  country,  which,  as  such,  ought  to 
insure  freedom  and  security  to  all  religious  denominations. 

THIDAN  (Germany). 

SCHLECHTA   (Austria-Hungary) . 

PEIXOTTO  (United  States). 

G.  LE  SOUARD  (Prance). 

J.  GREEN  (Great  Britain). 

NEANES  (Greece). 

ILLORIA  (Italy). 

Secretary  Fish  expressly  approved  of  Peixotto's  course  in 
this  matter,  in  the  following  vigorous  note :  M 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  May  13,  1872. 
SIR: 

The  Department  has  received  your  dispatch  No.  30,  of  the  19th 
ultimo,  accompanied  by  a  copy  of  the  remonstrance  addressed  by 
the  representatives  of  foreign  governments  at  Bucharest,  to  that 
of  the  principalities,  against  recent  maltreatment  of  Israelites 
there. 

The  Department  approves  your  taking  part  in  that  remon- 
strance. Whatever  caution  and  reserve  may  usually  characterize 
the  policy  of  the  Government  in  such  matters,  may  be  regarded  as 
inexpedient  when  every  guarantee  and  consideration  of  justice 
appear  to  have  been  set  at  defiance  in  the  course  pursued  with 
reference  to  the  unfortunate  people  referred  to.  You  will  not  be 
backward  in  joining  any  similar  protest,  or  other  measure  which 

36 1  Md. 


20  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

the  foreign  representatives  there  may  deem  advisable,  with  a  view 
to  avert  or  mitigate  further  harshness  toward  the  Israelite  resi- 
dents in,  or  subjects  of,  the  principalities. 

I  am,  sir,  &c.,  &c., 

HAMILTON  FISH. 
B.  F.  Peixotto,  Esq., 

United  States  Consul,  Bucharest. 

Our  Government  did  not,  however,  rest  with  mere  approval 
of  such  local  action,  but  Secretary  Fish  wrote  letters  to  our 
Ministers  at  Vienna,  London,  Paris,  Berlin,  Rome,  St.  Peters- 
burg and  Constantinople  on  July  22,  1872,  of  the  following 
tenor : 3T 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  July  22,  1872. 
SIR  : 

It  has  been  suggested  to  this  Department,  and  the  suggestion 
is  concurred  in,  that  if  the  sympathy  which  we  entertain  for  the 
inhumanly  persecuted  Hebrews,  in  the  principalities  of  Moldavia 
and  Wallachia,  were  made  known  to  the  government  to  which  you 
are  accredited,  it  might  quicken  and  encourage  the  efforts  of  that 
government  to  discharge  its  duty  as  a  protecting  power,  pursuant 
to  the  obligations  of  the  treaty  between  certain  European  states. 
Although  we  are  not  a  party  to  that  instrument,  and,  as  a  rule, 
scrupulously  abstain  from  interfering,  directly  or  indirectly,  in 
the  public  affairs  of  that  quarter,  the  grievance  adverted  to  is  so 
enormous,  as  to  impart  to  it,  as  it  were,  a  cosmopolitan  character, 
in  the  redress  of  which  all  countries,  governments,  and  creeds  are 
alike  interested. 

You  will  consequently  communicate  on  this  subject  with  the 
minister  for  foreign  affairs  of  the  Austro-Hungarian  Empire,  in 
such  way  as  you  may  suppose  might  be  most  likely  to  compass 
the  object  in  view.  I  am,  &c., 

HAMILTON  FISH. 

Minister  John  Jay  reported  August  31,  1872,  that  Austria 
had  already  joined  other  powers  in  a  note  to  the  Roumanian 
Government  on  the  subject,  and  England  had  recently  pro- 
posed further  action,  but  Austria  doubted  the  wisdom  and 
efficacy  of  further  proceedings .ss  Minister  Elihu  B.  Washburne 

"  "  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1872,"  p.  55,  et  seq. 
.,  pp.  62-3.    Cf.  British  State  Papers,  supra. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  21 

at  Paris  entered  into  important  correspondence  with  the 
French  Government,  which  was  also  favorably  inclined  to 
effective  intermediation,  and  this  correspondence  was  widely 
printed  at  the  time.39  M.  de  Remusat  closed  his  letter  to  E.  B. 
Washburne  of  August  30,  1872,  with  the  encouraging  words: 
You  can  say,  sir,  to  Mr.  Fish,  that  when  the  occasion  presents 
itself,  we  shall  insist  that  equal  protection  be  accorded  in  Rou- 
mania  to  all  creeds.  I  am  happy  to  say  that  our  intentions  in 
this  respect  accord  with  the  sentiments  you  have  expressed  to  me. 

George  Bancroft  reported  similar  sentiments  on  the  part  of 
the  German  Government.40  Earl  Granville  told  Minister 
Robert  C.  Schenck  that  unfortunately  he  could  not  pretend 
that  the  British  Government's  representations  had  met  with 
much  result,  and  that  he 

believed  a  general  expression  of  the  public  opinion  of  the  world 
would  have  more  effect  than  any  particular  means  which  govern- 
ments could  take.41 

Russia  again  took  an  unfavorable  stand,  when  our  views  were 
presented.  The  Turkish  Government  repudiated  any  sym- 
pathy with  these  persecutions.43  Mr.  Peixotto's  note  of  June 
24,  1872,43  shows  that  it  was  on  his  recommendation  that  Mr. 
Fish  sent  the  dispatches  of  July  24,  1872,  above  referred  to. 

In  the  course  of  a  private  letter  to  Mr.  Wolf,  dated  August  4, 
1871,  Mr.  Peixotto  wrote: 

Even  to  any  ordinary  consul  with  purely  commercial  duties,  the 
trial  and  task  is  enough,  but  to  one  with  such  a  mission  as  mine — 
involving  the  fate  of  250,000 — it  is  a  burden  and  a  struggle  few 

have  any  conception  of At  the  imminent  risk  of  my  life,  I 

have  visited  those  towns  and  villages  where,  during  the  last  year 
and  the  three  years  preceding,  the  most  violent  outrages  and 
robberies  have  been  committed You  have  doubtless  received 

39  "Foreign  Relations,"  supra,  p.  184.     See  Publications,  supra, 
No.  17,  p.  200. 
40 "  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States  for  1872,"  p.  194. 

41  IUd.,  p.  197. 

42  Ibid,,  pp.  493-7,  678. 

43  lUd.,  p.  692. 


22  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

the  Rumanische  Post,   and  have  read  my  editorials  and   those 

(not  written  by  my  own  hand)  which  I  have  directed You 

have  discovered  the  scope  and  character  of  this  journal.  Now, 
realizing  that  a  purely  Jewish  paper  would  have  no  reading  out- 
side of  Israel,  and  be  powerless  to  effect  political  good,  a  strong 
paper  from  a  national  standpoint,  gravely,  but  boldly  written, 
would  command  attention  and  in  due  time  become  (as  the  Post  has 
already  become)  an  effective  weapon.  My  reason  for  publishing 
it  in  the  German,  instead  of  the  Roumanian,  was  that  it  might  act 
as  a  censor,  be  a  whip  in  my  hand,  to  slash  the  vile  enemies  of  our 

race  naked  through  the  world I  have  set  all  Europe  ablaze 

with  the  cause  of  our  Roumanian  brethren.  All  the  great  journals 
of  England,  Germany,  Austria,  Prance  and  Italy  teem  with  articles 
on  the  persecutions  and  oppression  of  our  people,  and  not  only 
have  parliaments  been  moved,  but  cabinets,  and  if  I  mistake  not, 
some  great  results  must  follow. 

Another  contemporaneous  letter  refers  to  his  corresponding 
on  this  subject  with  Sir  Francis  Goldsmid  and  Mr.  A.  Loewy 
of  London,  of  the  Anglo-Jewish  Association,  N.  Leven  of 
the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle,  with  Cremieux,  Sir  Moses 
Montefiore,  Prof.  Moritz  Lazarus  of  Berlin,  Baron  Moritz  von 
Konigswarter,  Eitter  Josef  von  Werthheimer  and  Goldsmid  of 
Vienna.  Elaborate  plans  were  also  made,  and  foundations 
laid  for  improved  Jewish  education  throughout  Roumania, 
particularly  through  the  Order  Zion,  affiliated  with  the  I.  0. 
B.  B.,  and  Peixotto  was  ever  alert,  fearless,  and  untiring  in 
preventing  attacks  on  Jewish  rights  and  liberty. 

Dr.  Adolf  Stern,  who  was  Peixotto's  secretary  in  Roumania 
and  intimately  in  touch  with  all  his  work,  ably  summarized  his 
services  in  the  Memorial  Address  of  1891,  above  referred  to. 
Only  a  few  passages  from  this  address  can  be  utilized  herein, 
supplemented  by  Peixotto's  own  reports  and  correspondence, 
the  reports  and  files  of  the  Board  of  Delegates  of  American 
Israelites  and  the  contemporary  Jewish  newspapers. 

Naturally,  the  very  fact  of  an  Israelite's  holding  office  as 
representative  of  a  great  nation  in  Roumania,  created  a  stir 
there,  and  Dr.  Stern,  as  well  as  Mr.  Peixotto,  reports  how  the 
day  of  his  first  official  reception  by  the  Pririce  was  turned  into 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  23 

a  Jewish  holiday,  as  also  his  appearance  in  the  interior  on  his 
travels.  Moreover,  he  did  not  hesitate,  consistently,  to  advise 
the  Jews  of  Eoumania  to  defend  themselves  with  fire-arms, 
when  necessary,  as  a  protection  against  violence  and  assaults, 
the  right  of  self-defence  being  recognized  even  by  Roumanian 
law.  Argument  and  friendly  intercourse  with  influential  per- 
sonages in  Eoumania  were  resorted  to  by  Peixotto,  to  establish 
a  better  feeling  towards  the  Jews,  and  he  entertained  exten- 
sively. Largely  through  his  influence,  prefects  whose  inactivity 
had  promoted  anti-Semitic  riots  were  removed,  and  new  hostile 
legislation  against  the  Jews  was  prevented.  He  vigorously 
combated  the  theory  that  native-born  Jews  could  be  treated 
as  aliens  in  Eoumania,  and,  moreover,  as  aliens  without  any 
foreign  state  obligated  to  protect  them,  but  this  benighted 
theory  was  nevertheless  adopted  by  the  Eoumanian  courts,  and 
underlies  Eoumanian  Jewish  disabilities  to  this  day.  He 
recognized  the  need  for  superior  education  and  educational 
facilities  among  the  Jews,  and  agitated  for  their  organization, 
and  also  founded,  in  1871,  the  influential  Eoumanian  Jewish 
benevolent  society  referred  to,  similar  to  and  afiliated  with  the 
I.  0.  B.  B.,  called  Order  Zion,  which  carried  this  programme 
into  practice.  His  activity  in  connection  with  international 
Jewish  conferences  and  their  programmes  for  Eoumanian 
Jewry  will  be  presently  considered,  as  also  the  related  project 
of  proposed  wholesale  emigration  of  Eoumanian  Jews  to  the 
United  States  in  the  early  seventies. 

When  Peixotto  resigned  the  consulate  in  1875,  there  were 
numerous  estimates  published,  reviewing  the  value  of  his  ser- 
vices. While  it  was  conceded  on  the  one  hand  that  he  had 
aroused  bitter  enmities  in  certain  quarters,  and  had  met  with 
opposition  even  from  a  minority  of  the  Eoumanian  Jews  them- 
selves, while,  on  the  other  hand,  many  of  his  Eoumanian  co- 
religionists had  formed  unjustifiably  high  expectations  as  to 
what  he  would  achieve,  it  was  generally  admitted  that  he  had 
done  much  for  the  cause  he  had  so  enthusiastically  espoused. 


24  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Atrocities  against  the  Jews  would  have  assumed  much  greater 
dimensions,  and  much  more  drastic  anti-Jewish  legislation 
would  have  been  enacted,  had  it  not  been  for  his  efforts.  But 
his  chief  merit  was  recognized  to  have  been  his  success  in 
rousing  all  Europe,  as  well  as  the  United  States,  against  Rou- 
manian anti-Semitic  intolerance,  and  the  importance  of  inter- 
national action.  Even  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  of  London, 
stated  **  that  "  the  international  Jewish  conference  of  Brussels 
[the  first  of  a  series]  was  certainly  his  work." 

In  a  letter  written  by  Sir  Francis  Goldsmid  to  Judge  Isaacs 
on  May  2, 1872,  he  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  American  Rou- 
manian Committee  was  responsible  for  the  formation  of  the 
London  Roumanian  Committee  to  promote  Peixotto's  pro- 
gramme, the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle  cooperating,  and 
suggestions  were  made  by  Sir  Francis  for  encouraging  Pei- 
xotto's  work.  He  said  he  felt  sure 

that  you  like  ourselves  are  fully  impressed  with  the  value  of  the 
services  rendered  to  our  Roumanian  brethren  by  Mr.  Peixotto. 
....  We  are  certain  that  the  Israelites  of  America,  to  whom  is 
due  the  honor  of  having  set  this  mission  on  foot,  will  not  let  it  fall 
for  want  of  material  aid. 

In  the  "  Memoir  of  Sir  Francis  Henry  Goldsmid,"  by  Marks 
and  Lb'wy,  similar  views  are  expressed  as  to  the  value  of  Pei- 
xotto's  services  (p.  161).  Goldsmid  was  for  many  years  the 
leading  champion  of  the  cause  of  the  Balkan  Jews,  and  this 
work  contains  much  additional  material  of  value.  Mr.  Wolf 
was,  moreover,  informed  by  Delegate  Chief  Rabbi  Hermann 
Adler,  in  1881,  that  Lord  Beaconsfield  had  told  the  latter  that 
what  Peixotto  had  done  was  of  material  aid  in  securing  the 
adoption  of  the  Jewish  rights  provisions  of  the  Berlin  Treaty 
of  1878,  and  a  close  study  of  the  history  of  the  period  confirms 
this  view. 

44  Reprinted  in  The  Jewish  Times,  vol.  viii,  1877,  p.  356. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  25 

II. 
THREE  INTERNATIONAL  JEWISH  CONFERENCES,  1872-1878. 

A.  THE  INTERNATIONAL  JEWISH  CONFERENCE  AT  BRUSSELS, 

1872. 

As  already  indicated,  Peixotto  was  in  close  correspondence 
with  the  Jewish  leaders  of  public  opinion  in  Europe,  and  on  his 
way  to  Eoumania  had  met  a  number  of  these  communal  guides, 
and  placed  himself  in  touch  with  them.  In  consequence,  an 
international  Jewish  conference,  probably  the  first  in  modern 
times,  met  at  Brussels,  October  29  and  30,  1872,  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  Prof.  Moritz  Lazarus,  and  on  the  call  of  a  Berlin 
committee  of  which  Julius  Bleichroeder  was  temporary  chair- 
man, under  date  of  September  19,  1872,  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  the  condition  of  the  Jews  in  the  Balkan  States. 
Cremieux  presided,  and  Prof.  Moritz  Lazarus  of  Berlin  and 
Sir  Francis  Goldsmid  of  London,  together  with  Dr.  Leopold 
Kompert  of  Vienna  were  vice-presidents.  The  United  States 
was  represented  by  Mr.  Peixotto  and  Isaac  Seligman  of  Lon- 
don. Twenty-five  of  the  delegates  sat  down  at  a  banquet  given 
in  honor  of  the  occasion,  and  one  of  the  guests  remarked,  as 
indicative  of  their  standing,  that  twenty-one  of  these  Jews  had 
been  decorated.  It  was  decided  to  encourage  the  submission  of 
a  petition  from  the  Jews  of  Roumania  for  complete  civil  and 
political  rights  to  the  Roumanian  legislature,  and  under  the 
advice  of  the  Conference,  such  a  petition  was  drafted,  and  is 
hereto  annexed  in  translated  form  as  Appendix  I  (p.  98). 
An  executive  board,  composed  of  members  from  various  coun- 
tries, was  organized,  with  headquarters  at  Vienna,  and  an 
elaborate  and  thorough  programme  for  educational  and  moral 
reforms  among  the  Jews  of  Roumania  was  adopted.  A  project 
for  the  encouragement  of  immigration  en  masse  of  Roumanian 
Jews  to  the  United  States  was  unanimously  disapproved  of.45 

*The  Jewish  Times,  vol.  iv,  pp.  772,  816;  "Final  Report  of 
Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites,"  New  York,  1879,  p.  30 ; 
Leven's  History  of  the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle,  Paris,  1911 ; 
Stern's  Denkrede  ii'ber  Benj.  F.  Peixotto,  Bucharest,  1891,  pp.  27-33. 


26  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

The  proceedings  of  the  Conference  were  conducted  behind 
closed  doors,  after  a  full  discussion  of  the  pros  and  cons  of  such 
course.  The  Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites'  annual 
report  quoted  the  American  delegates,  Peixotto  and  Isaac 
Seligman,  under  date  of  November  13,  1872,  to  the  effect  that 
this  was 

the  first  assemblage  ever  convoked,  which  included  all  shades  of 
religious  sentiment  within  the  house  of  Israel  and  had  no  discord 
as  to  doctrine  or  dogma,  but  unanimously  agreed  on  the  broad 
ground  of  Judaism  and  humanity,  never  to  rest  until  every  en- 
thralled Israelite  stands  forth  a  free  man It  was  a  spectacle 

never  to  be  forgotten  to  witness  this  conference  of  the  best  men 
drawn  from  all  lands  to  deliberate  for  the  emancipation  of  the 
down-trodden  masses  in  Roumania. 

The  immigration  resolution  of  the  Conference  calls  for  more 
extended  consideration.  Even  before  Peixotto  went  to  Bou- 
mania,  wholesale  emigration  of  Eoumanian  Jews  to  the  United 
States  had  been  suggested  in  several  quarters,  and  Eabbi 
Maurice  Fluegel,  a  native  of  Bucharest,  who  had  then  resided 
for  some  years  in  the  United  States,  published  elaborate  plans 
along  these  lines,  some  of  which  he  had  submitted  to  Cremieux 
and  others.  Peixotto,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  British  Consul 
at  Bucharest,  had  made  an  informal  inquiry  of  the  Eoumanian 
Government  whether  it  would  permit  the  emigration  of  Jews, 
whereupon  the  premier,  Costaforo,  at  once  seized  upon  this 
expedient  as  a  cure  for  the  Eoumanian  Jewish  problem, 
and  announced  publicly  that  his  Government  would  wel- 
come a  total  transmigration  of  Boumanian  Jews  to  America, 
and  that  from  August  18,  1872,  until  the  next  assembly  of  the 
legislature,  free  passports  would  be  issued.46  Sir  Francis  Gold- 
smid,  on  September  12,  1872,  addressed  a  public  letter  to 
Peixotto,  pointing  out  the  utterly  impracticable  nature  of  such 
a  wholesale  remedy,  and  the  unfavorable  impression-  it  had 
made.*7  A  Eoumanian  Emigration  Society  had,  meantime, 
been  formed  in  the  United  States,  but  only  such  as  were  in- 

*"'  The  Jewish  Times,  vol.  iv,  p.  628;  Adolf  Stern,  supra. 
47  The  Jewish  Times,  vol.  iv,  p.  729. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  27 

capable  of  supporting  themselves,  in  general,  came  over  under 
these  auspices,  so  that  Mr.  Leopold  Bamberger  of  New  York, 
president  of  the  society,  wrote  a  letter,  under  date  of  August  6, 
1873,48  in  which  he  gave  his  personal 

opinion,  based  upon  a  practical  experience  of  about  nine  months, 
that  the  flow  of  emigration  to  this  country  so  far  [from  Roumania] 
has  been  a  perfect  failure,  and  in  reality  a  misfortune  to  all  those 
who  were  induced  to  leave  Roumania, 

and  he  reported  that 

of  about  150  emigrants  who  have  arrived  here,  more  than  90%  came 
as  paupers  and  became  a  burden  to  our  Society  from  the  very  day 
they  landed  on  our  shores, 

and  he  had  informed  Mr.  Peixotto  of  this,  and  urged  that  young 
and  energetic  men  only  should  be  encouraged  to  come  over,  and 
not  those  incapable  of  providing  for  themselves.  This  seems 
to  be  the  first,  and  last,  time  that  any  wholesale,  unselected 
Jewish  emigration  from  abroad  to  the  United  States  was 
encouraged,  and,  as  seen,  long  before  Mr.  Bamberger's  letter 
above  quoted  was  written,  the  Brussels  International  Jewish 
Conference  pronounced  against  it.  Dr.  Stern,  misled  by  a  few 
early  comments  in  American  newspapers,  in  favor  of  the  en- 
couragement of  Eoumanian  Jewish  immigration,  vigorously 
criticised  the  action  of  the  Brussels  Conference  in  this  respect, 
but,  as  seen,  even  Peixotto  voted  ultimately  in  favor  of  the 
resolution  of  disapproval,  and  this  was  long  before  our  National 
Government  adopted  a  law  in  1907  forbidding  societies  and 
foreign  states  from  encouraging  emigration  to  our  shores.49 

4S  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  373. 

49  Peixotto's  attitude  to  this  emigration  project  was  ably  ex- 
pressed in  a  personal  letter  to  Judge  Isaacs,  dated  December  3, 
1872.  He  stated  that  an  unofficial  inquiry  as  to  what  restrictions,  if 
any,  existed  upon  Jewish  emigration  was  distorted  into  an  alleged 
project  for  emigration  en  masse.  On  the  other  hand,  he  said  that 
he  was  disposed  to  favor  some  emigration  to  the  United  States,  and 
stated  that  an  object  lesson  would  have  been  afforded  to  Roumania, 
as  many  of  her  Jewish  subjects  were  practically  indispensable  to 


•*. 


28  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

It  appears  that  the  petition  to  the  Roumanian  Chamber  of 
Deputies  was  not  submitted,  after  all,  the  Eoumanian  premier 
advising  against  its  submission  so  late  in  the  session,  when  its 
adoption  was  declared  to  be  impossible,  and  many  of  the  in- 
fluential Eoumanian  Jews  themselves  feared  that  its  discussion 
might  lead  to  still  further  discriminatory  laws.  Nor  did  the 
Vienna  executive  board  accomplish  much,  but  differences  of 
opinion  developed  between  it  and  Peixotto,  and  the  board  de- 
clined to  approve  Peixotto's  plans,  which  included  founding 
an  Arbeits-bureau,  at  an  expense  of  $25,000  per  annum,  includ- 

her.  But  he  conceded  that  the  emigration  project,  en  masse,  was 
strongly  opposed,  not  merely  by  Sir  Francis  Goldsmid,  but  also  by 
other  distinguished  European  Jews,  including  Prof.  Lazarus, 
Baron  Rothschild,  Konigswarter  and  Bleichroeder.  The  Board  of 
Delegates  of  American  Israelites  expressed  their  attitude  towards 
the  question  in  their  published  report  of  May,  1873,  as  follows: 
"  This  Committee  embraced  an  early  opportunity  to  deprecate 
indiscriminate  emigration,  but  expressed  the  willingness  of  Ameri- 
can Israelites  to  welcome  to  our  shores  Roumanians  who  may 
desire  to  establish  themselves  in  a  new  country,  and  also  are  pre- 
pared to  help  themselves,  and  to  appreciate  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship." Judge  Isaacs  prepared  a  pamphlet  on  Roumanian  dis- 
criminations entitled  "  The  Jews  in  Roumania,"  New  York,  1872, 
which  the  Board  published  in  English  and  German.  Mr.  A.  S. 
Freidus,  of  the  New  York  Public  Library,  has  kindly  called  my 
attention  to  a  Hebrew  work  by  Leon  Horowitz,  entitled  "  Roumania 
and  America,"  favoring  such  emigration,  published  in  Berlin 
in  January,  1874,  and  dedicated  to  Peixotto.  A  fuller  description 
of  this  work  is  contained  (p.  122)  in  the  excellent  "  List  of  Works 
Relating  to  the  History  and  Conditions  of  the  Jews  in  Various 
Countries,"  278  pp.,  published  by  The  New  York  Public  Library  in 
1914  and  prepared  by  Mr.  Freidus.  Horowitz's  work  is  replete  with 
Jewish  information  about  Peixotto's  troubles  and  struggles  in  Rou- 
mania. He  wrote,  besides,  a  biography  of  Peixotto  in  Hebrew, 
published  in  Ha-Carmel,  vol.  i,  1871,  and  separately  reprinted.  I 
am  indebted  to  Mr.  Freidus,  Miss  E.  Cowen,  Prof.  Gotthard 
Deutsch,  Albert  M.  Friedenberg,  Leon  Huhner  and  Arthur  K. 
Kuhn  for  other  references  in  this  paper.  I  am  also  greatly  indebted 
to  my  wife  for  valuable  assistance  in  the  preparation  of  this  work. 

M.  J.  K. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  29 

ing  the  conduct  of  a  newspaper  and  extensive  educational  work, 
all  under  his  direction.80  Meanwhile  it  was  reported  that 
Eoumanian  Jewish  immigration  to  the  United  States  had 
practically  ceased.51 

B.    THE  INTERNATIONAL  JEWISH   CONFERENCE  AT  PARIS,  1876. 

The  assemblage  of  a  Conference  of  the  Powers  at  Constanti- 
nople, to  take  action  regarding  Eastern  European  affairs,  and 
renewed  Eoumanian  and  Serbian  Jewish  persecution,  led  to 
the  convening  of  a  second  International  Jewish  Conference, 
which  met  at  Paris,  December  11,  1876,  being  called  together 
by  the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle  at  the  instance  of  the 
Anglo- Jewish  Association.52  Again  some  of  the  leading  Jews 
of  the  day  assembled,  representing  their  coreligionists  from  all 
the  chief  countries,  including  America.  Cremieux  again  pre- 
sided, and  the  vice-presidents  were  Baron  Henry  de  Worms, 
Chief  Eabbi  Lazard  Isidor,  Dr.  Samuel  Kristeller,  Chief  Eabbi 
Elie-Aristide  Astruc  and  William  Seligman.  America  was 
represented  by  William  Seligman  and  Arthur  Levy  of  Paris, 
and  J.  M.  Laurence  of  London.  Again  vehement  discussions 
took  place  regarding  the  questions  of  meeting  in  executive 
session  and  excluding  representatives  of  the  press,  both  meas- 
ures being  again  adopted,  though  subsequently  a  detailed  report 
of  the  proceedings  and  of  speeches  at  a  banquet  given  in 
connection  with  the  conference  was  published  in  booklet  form. 
Baron  Henry  de  Worms,  one  of  the  then  ablest  living  author- 
ities on  the  Eastern  Question,  suggested  that  the  Conference  of 
the  Powers  should  be  appealed  to  on  behalf  of  the  Jews,  by 
submitting  two  different  propositions:  (a)  protection  and 
equal  civil  and  political  rights  for  all  non-Mohammedans  in  the 

50  The  Jewish  Times,  vol.  v,  1874,  p.  52. 

51  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  1876,  p.  214. 

52  See  ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  708,  728,  144;  Leven's  History,  supra; 
Reunion  au  Faveur  des  Israelites  de  VOrient,  Paris,  December, 
1876,  101  pp.    A  copy  of  the  rare  booklet,  last  cited,  is  in  the  New 
York   Public   Library,    and   contains   a   detailed    report   of   this 
Conference. 


30  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Ottoman  Empire,  and  (b)  emancipation  of  the  Jews  in  the 
Balkan  provinces.  Both  propositions  were  adopted,  though 
Baron  de  Worms'  further  suggestion  was  voted  down,  that  the 
countries  to  be  represented  at  the  Constantinople  Conference 
be  severally  appealed  to,  and  not  the  Conference  collectively. 
An  able  commission  was  appointed  to  prepare  the  proposed 
memorial  to  the  Constantinople  Conference,  and  consisted  of 
Cremieux,  Chief  Babbi  Astruc  of  Brussels,  Baron  Henry  de 
Worms,  1ST.  Leven,  A.  Loewy,  B.  Singer,  Joseph  Derenbourg, 
Dr.  Landsberg  and  F.  Veneziani.  A  very  strong  memorial  was 
prepared,  a  translation  of  which  is  hereto  annexed  as  Appendix 
II  (p.  102).  Unfortunately,  the  Constantinople  Conference 
itself  accomplished  practically  nothing,  a  resort  to  arms  be- 
tween Eussia  and  Turkey  being  the  substitute  adopted,  though 
meantime  M.  Charles  ^Tetter  went  to  Constantinople,  on  this 
mission,  and  copies  of  the  memorial,  as  well  as  of  Isidore  Loeb's 
able  book  La  Situation  des  Israelites  en  Turquie,  en  Serbie  et 
en  Roumanie,  were  handed  to  representatives  of  all  the  Great 
Powers.  Particular  support  to  these  efforts  was  given  by  the 
publication,  in  a  later  edition  of  M.  Loeb's  book  and  elsewhere, 
of  American  official  action,  including  the  Washburoe-Eemusat 
correspondence  already  referred  to,  and  a  letter  written  by 
U.  S.  Minister  Horace  Maynard  to  Mr.  William  Seligman,  one 
of  the  American  delegates,53  reading  as  follows : 

DEAR  SIR-  Constantinople,  Jan.  9,  1877. 

I  have  received,  by  the  last  courier,  your  letter  of  the  2nd  inst, 
containing  a  copy  of  the  Memorial  addressed  to  the  Conference 
which  is  sitting  at  present  in  this  capital.  It  is  with  pleasure  that 
I  will  favor  the  object  of  this  Memorial.  In  a  conversation  that  I 
had  yesterday  evening  with  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury,  he  has 
assured  me  of  his  sympathies  for  this  question.  All  measures 
taken  for  the  benefit  of  the  non-Mussulman  population  of  Turkey 
will  equally  aid,  I  am  convinced,  also  the  Jews  there. 

I  am,  etc., 

HORACE  MAYNARD. 

53  Loeb,  supra,  p.  369. 


Jewi-sli  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  31 

Mr.  Maynard  informed  our  Department  of  State  that  he 
had  unofficially  taken  this  matter  up  with  delegates  to  the 
conference.54 

Mr.  Maynard's  letter  to  Mr.  William  Seligman  was  written 
by  him  in  answer  to  one  from  the  latter  enclosing  a  copy  of  the 
Memorial,  which  letter  was  printed  in  our  "  Foreign  Rela- 
tions," M  and  a  copy  of  the  Memorial  had  also  meanwhile  been 
sent  to  our  Department  of  State  in  Washington  by  Judge 
Isaacs  on  January  16,  1877,  and  its  receipt  was  suitably 
acknowledged,  after  he  had  perused  it,  by  Mr.  Fish  on  Febru- 
ary 16,  1877.  In  the  letter  in  which  Mr.  Maynard  acknowl- 
edged receipt  of  the  correspondence  between  the  Board  of 
Delegates  of  American  Israelites  and  the  State  Department, 
which  the  latter  had  transmitted  to  him,  he  distinguished  be- 
tween Roumania  and  Turkey  proper,  and  added : 

Justice  to  the  Turks  requires  me  to  say  they  have  treated  the 
Jews  much  better  than  have  some  of  the  western  Powers  of  Europe 
....  An  impression  prevails  that  under  Turkish  rule,  the  treat- 
ment of  the  Jews  is  better  than  that  of  the  Christians [The 

Turkish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs]  protested  that  where  the 
Turkish  rule  obtained,  the  Israelites  have  always  enjoyed  every 
privilege  and  immunity  accorded  by  the  laws  to  Ottoman  subjects. 
His  language  in  that  sense  was  very  emphatic.  For  their  treat- 
ment in  the  provinces  the  Sublime  Porte  could  not  justly  be  held 
responsible.  Yet,  even  there,  in  the  late  treaty  with  Servia,  they 
had  exacted  from  her  a  promise  of  justice  to  these  much  injured 
people. 

Similarly,  the  Turkish  Minister  at  Washington  pointed  out 
to  the  Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites,  in  May,  1877, 
that  his  Government  was  not  responsible  for  the  persecution  of 
the  Jews  in  Roumania,  and  that 

the  policy  of  the  Porte  towards  the  Israelites  in  the  provinces 
under  the  direct  sovereignty  of  the  Sultan,  is  impartial  and  enlight- 
ened, and  is  characterized  by  the  concession  to  them  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty. 

54 "  Foreign  Relations  of  United  States,  1877,"  letter  of  June  26, 
1877,  pp.  593-4. 

.,  pp.  596-7. 


32  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

The  unpublished  correspondence  between  the  Board  of  Dele- 
gates of  American  Israelites  and  Secretary  of  State  Evarts, 
above  referred  to,  was  as  follows : 

I. 

New  York,  May  1,  5637,  1877 
Hon.  WM.  M.  EVARTS, 

Secretary  of  State. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  beginning  of  war  between  Russia  and  Turkey, 
ostensibly  for  the  protection  by  the  former  Power  of  the  Christians 
resident  in  the  dominions  of  the  Porte,  vividly  suggests  the  danger 
and  persecution  to  which  the  Israelites  dwelling  in  the  Turkish 
provinces  are  imminently  exposed  and  reminds  us  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  friendly  hand  interposed  to  save  these  unhappy  people 
from  the  foreign  invader  or  from  the  mob  in  whose  midst  they 
dwell. 

During  many  years,  the  State  Department  has  generously  and 
justly  taken  cognizance  of  the  anomalous  condition  of  the  Hebrews 
in  Roumania.  In  the  interest  of  humanity,  Mr.  Peixotto,  the  late 
Consul  of  the  United  States  at  Bucharest,  interposed,  with  the 
cooperation  of  his  consular  colleagues,  to  prevent  the  onslaught  on 
the  Hebrews  begun  in  the  villages  and  extending  to  the  capital  of 
Roumania.  On  several  occasions,  Mr.  Peixotto's  indefatigable 
energy  proved  the  salvation  of  the  unhappy  Hebrews. 

Already  the  intelligence  reaches  us  that  at  Giurgewo,  the  Rou- 
manians have  killed  eight  and  wounded  eleven  fugitive  Israelites. 
There  is  no  protection  for  these  people  in  the  cities  or  villages  and 
when  they  seek  refuge  in  flight,  they  are  massacred. 

Cannot  our  Government,  so  ably  represented  at  Constantinople 
and  Vienna  and  with  a  powerful  naval  force  in  the  Mediterranean, 
accomplish  something  for  the  protection  of  the  Hebrews  dwelling 
in  the  Principalities? 

Events  march  rapidly;  and  although  there  is  an  acting  United 
States  Consular  Agent  at  Bucharest,  a  gentleman  of  zeal  and  dis- 
cretion, he  may  be  driven  from  his  post  and  denied  the  opportunity 
or  the  right  to  intervene  for  humanity's  sake. 

It  is  a  question  of  the  life  and  liberty  of  two  hundred  thousand 
persons  denied  in  the  land  of  their  birth  or  adoption  the  rights  of 
man — denied  these  as  Hebrews,  because  of  peculiar  treaty  interpre- 
tations, oppressive  and  unprecedented  local  laws  and  a  bigoted 
populace  to  intensify  the  terror  of  proscription  and  persecution. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  33 

Under  such  extraordinary  circumstances  we  earnestly  beg  that 
the  Department  will  instruct  the  United  States  Ministers  and  rep- 
resentatives near  the  Turkish  provinces  to  cooperate  with  their 
colleagues  in  such  measures  as  may  be  devised  for  the  relief  of  the 
persecuted  Hebrews  of  Roumania. 

We  are,  with  great  respect, 

for  the  Executive  Committee : 

MYER  S.  ISAACS,  President. 
SIMON  WOLF,  V.  Pres., 
(of  Washington,  D.  C.) 

II. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  May  26,  1877. 
MYER  S.  ISAACS,  Esquire. 

SIR:  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  1st 
instant,  in  relation  to  the  hardships,  outrages  and  persecutions  of 
the  Israelites  dwelling  in  the  Turkish  provinces.  In  view  of  the 
oppression  of  these  unhappy  people,  and  of  the  dangers  to  which 
they  are  exposed,  you  appeal  to  the  Department  to  instruct  the 
United  States  Ministers  and  representatives  near  the  Turkish 
provinces  to  cooperate  with  their  colleagues  in  such  measures  as 
may  be  desired  for  the  relief  and  protection  of  the  Hebrews  dwell- 
ing in  the  principalities,  and  you  instance  especially  those  in  Rou- 
mania. Much  of  the  misery  that  is  now  being  endured  is  insepara- 
ble from  the  state  of  war  in  which  the  country  is  now  engaged. 
The  provinces  are  all  more  or  less  under  military  control  and  it  is 
feared  that  ordinary  diplomatic  protests  and  representations  can- 
not be  made  at  present  as  effective  as  is  wished  by  all  who  desire 
to  see  right,  justice  and  humanity  prevail. 

In  furtherance  of  your  wishes  the  Department  will  refer  a  copy 
of  your  letter  to  our  Minister  at  Constantinople  with  instructions 
to  take  such  action  in  the  matter  as  will  in  his  judgment  be  best 
calculated  to  secure  an  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  op- 
pressed people. 

I  am,  Sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  M.  EVARTS. 

At  the  same  time  Secretary  Evarts  forwarded  the  foregoing 
correspondence  to  Minister  Maynard,  and  wrote  him,  as  fol- 
lows: 


34  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

III. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  May  28,  1877. 
HORACE  MAYNARD,  Esquire. 

SIR:  I  transmit  herewith  for  your  information  a  copy  of  corre- 
spondence between  the  Department  and  the  President  of  the 
Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites. 

You  will  give  such  instructions  to  our  Consular  representatives 
in  the  Provinces  as  will  be  in  your  judgment,  in  view  of  the  pecu- 
liar exigencies  of  the  situation  at  present,  best  adapted  to  secure 
to  the  Israelites  the  desired  protection. 
I  am,  Sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  M.  EVARTS. 

Responses  were  received  from  representatives  of  other  Great 
Powers  to  the  Paris  Memorial,  above  described,  as  recorded  in 
LoeVs  work,88  and  in  Narcisse  Leven's  able  Cinqudnte  ans 
d'histoire.  L' Alliance  Israelite  Universelle,  1860-1910. 

The  answer  of  the  English  Government  to  the  Anglo-Jewish 
Association  was  very  explicit.  Lord  Derby  said : 

You  may  be  certain,  that,  under  the  present  ministry  and,  with- 
out any  doubt,  under  every  ministry  that  could  be  formed  in  this 
country,  the  policy  of  England  in  the  future,  will  be,  as  it  has  been 
in  the  past,  favorable  to  the  abolition  of  all  distinctions  between 
the  adherents  of  one  religion  and  another 

Lord  Derby  promised  to  exert  all  England's  influence  in  a 
manner  which  would  seem  to  him  the  wisest  and  most  practical 
for  preventing  in  the  future  the  persecutions  of  the  past.  He 
added: 

The  Roumanian  and  Servian  question  ought  not  to  be  confounded 
with  that  of  the  Turkish  provinces.  In  what  will  be  done  for  the 
internal  administration  of  Turkey,  I  am  certainly  not  prepared  to 
concur  with  any  measure  of  administrative  reform  which  does  not 
apply  to  all  non-Mussulman  subjects.  As  for  Roumania  and 
Servia,  the  position  of  semi-independence  which  they  have  acquired 
makes  direct  action  for  them  more  difficult. 

56  Pp.  365-8. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  35 

The  Minister  said,  in  short,  that,  having  seen  the  Memorial 
for  the  first  time  the  very  morning  of  this  conversation,  he 
could  not  comment  upon  it  in  detail,  but  that  he  would  send 
it  to  the  Ambassador  at  Constantinople  for  such  action  as 
might  be  proper. 

Melegari,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Italy,  declared 
to  a  Eoman  deputation  of  the  A  lliance  Israelite  : 

No  concession  should  be  made  to  Servia  and  to  Roumania, 
except  on  condition  that  they  accord  equality  to  the  Israelites. 

The  German  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  von  Billow,  an- 
nounced to  the  German  delegates,  in  the  name  of  Prince  Bis- 
marck, the  Chancellor  of  the  Empire,  that  the  Memorial  had 
been  sent  to  the  German  plenipotentiary  in  Constantinople 
and  declared  that  the 

Imperial  Government  will  support  with  pleasure  the  wishes 
concerning  the  equality  of  the  Israelitish  subjects  of  Turkey  with 
those  of  other  confessions,  and  will  act  in  the  same  way,  should  the 
condition  of  the  Israelitish  population  in  Roumania  and  Servia 
enter  into  the  conclusions  of  the  deliberations  of  the  Conference." 
Prince  Orloff,  Ambassador  of  Russia  in  Paris,  most  cordially 
received  a  deputation  of  the  Alliance,  which  had  sent  him  a 
copy  of  the  Memorial,  and  expressed  the  conviction 

that  no  measure  would  be  taken  in  Turkey  in  favor  of  the  Chris- 
tians, which  would  not  be  extended  equally  to  the  Israelites. 

The  Alliance  made  a  special  request  of  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  of  France;  it  was  to  introduce  to  the  French 
Ambassador  in  Constantinople,  M.  Netter,  a  member  of  the 
Central  Committee  of  the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle,  au- 
thorized to  act  in  its  name  in  Constantinople.  Duke  Decazes 

57  Already  in  1868  Bismarck  had  officially  expressed  similar  sym- 
pathy for  this  cause.  Loeb,  supra,  p.  329.  On  February  28,  1878, 
von  Biilow  replied,  in  terms  foreshadowing  favorable  action  by  the 
Powers,  to  a  petition  addressed  to  Bismarck  by  the  leading  Jewish 
congregations  of  Germany.  See  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Juden- 
tums,  1878,  pp.  157,  198,  426,  469-70. 


36  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

answered  "  that  he  was  eager  to  recommend  M.  Netter  to  the 
kindly  welcome  of  the  Ambassador/'  and  added : 

The  sentiments  of  the  French  Government  on  the  question  with 
which  the  Alliance  is  engaged,  are  well  enough  known,  so  that 
there  is  no  need  of  my  adding  that  the  support  of  our  plenipo- 
tentiaries is  assured  in  advance  to  the  Israelites  of  the  Orient,  in 
the  deliberations  in  which  their  interests  and  their  rights  could  be 
the  object. 

The  Eusso-Turkish  War  brought  much  misery  to  the  Jews 
of  Eastern  Europe  in  particular,  the  reports  in  the  Jewish 
papers  of  that  period  reminding  us  greatly  of  war  reports  of 
our  own  time.  The  Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites 
called  these  conditions  to  the  attention  of  our  State  Depart- 
ment, and  the  correspondence,  given  above,  took  place.  This 
correspondence  Secretary  Evarts,  as  pointed  out,  communi- 
cated to  Minister  Horace  Maynard.  It  produced  newspaper 
reports  of  an  exaggerated  character,  which  were  referred  to  in 
the  following  unpublished  letters  exchanged  between  Consular 
Agent  Adolf  Stern  and  our  Department  of  State. 

I. 

Bucharest,  May  SO,  1877. 
Hon.  WILLIAM  M.  EVABTS. 

SIB:  On  the  28th  inst.  I  received  from  the  Foreign  Office  a  note 
wherein  Mr.  Kogalniceano,  referring  to  the  action  of  the  deputa- 
tion from  the  Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites  in  behalf 
of  the  Roumanian  Jews,  and  giving  me  positive  assurances  that 
the  alleged  atrocities  of  Giurgewo  have  not  occurred,  requests  me 
to  "  enlighten  my  Government  and  to  state  that  those  atrocities 
are  a  pure  invention." 

In  reply  I  sent  to  the  Foreign  Office  the  note  of  which  I  beg  to 
transmit  an  accurate  copy. 

Roumania  is  anxious  to  prove  the  legitimacy  of  her  claims  to  the 
political  independence  which  she  has  recently  proclaimed;  it  is 
therefore  natural  that  the  Government  should  feel  alarmed  by  any- 
thing which  is  calculated  to  create  bad  feeling  abroad  and  revive 
the  memory  of  the  intolerance  which  has  so  frequently  led  to  the 
gross  outrages  heretofore  practiced  on  the  Jews  of  Roumania. 
I  am,  Sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

ADOLF  STERN. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  37 

II. 

Bucharest,  May  27,  1877 
Hon.  WILLIAM  M.  EVABTS. 

SIB:  I  learn  from  a  newspaper  that  on  May  2d  a  deputation  from 
the  Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites  have  waited  upon 
his  Excel,  the  President  and  yourself  in  behalf  of  the  Israelites  of 
Roumania,  presenting  a  written  statement  respecting  recent  bar- 
barities committed  upon  the  Jews  of  Giurgewo  and  urging  the 
Department  to  request  our  Representatives  at  Vienna,  Constanti- 
nople and  St.  Petersburg  to  act  in  conjunction  with  the  Represent- 
atives of  those  Powers  in  endeavoring  to  repress  further  atrocities. 

While  it  is  desirable  that  the  Department,  in  compliance  with 
the  request  of  that  deputation,  should  instruct  the  American  Rep- 
resentatives abroad  to  interpose  whenever  required  in  behalf  of  the 
Roumanian  Israelites,  who  labor  under  many  disabilities  and  are 
exposed  to  frequent  vexations,  I  must  state  that,  from  my  own 
inquiries,  no  other  atrocities  have  been  practised  on  the  Roumanian 
Jews,  since  November  last,  when  several  hundred  Jewish  inhabi- 
tants were  driven  away  from  the  rural  communes  of  the  district 
of  Washir  in  Moldavia.  I  have  used  my  best  influence  and  efforts 
to  have  the  Government  repress  at  once  these  inhumane  expul- 
sions; but  only  after  they  had  been  suffered  to  go  on  for  about  4 
months,  was  it  possible  to  obtain  the  resignation  (not  dismissal) 
of  the  Prefect  Lupashku,  who  had  issued  the  orders  for  expulsion. 
In  many  instances  the  orders  were  withdrawn  and  several  of  the 
expelled  Israelites,  who  were  wandering  shelterless  about  the 
country  with  their  wives  and  children,  exposed  to  cold  and  hunger, 
were  allowed  to  return  to  their  homes,  where  they  found  their 
property  destroyed.  They  cannot  expect  compensation  for  their 
losses,  nor  redress  for  the  wrongs  practised  upon  them.  These 
expulsions  are  all  based  upon  Articles  8  and  12  of  the  Liquor  Law, 
passed  in  1873,  which  excludes  from  the  liquor  traffic  in  the  rural 
communes  "  all  persons  not  inscribed  as  electors  in  one  of.  the 
Communes  of  Roumania,"  thereby  virtually  prohibiting  all  Israel- 
ites from  continuing  or  engaging  in  this  trade.  The  Government, 
on  the  representation  of  the  Consuls  here,  repeatedly  pledged  itself 
not  to  enforce  this  law  and  to  have  the  same  repealed,  but  the  law 
is  still  in  force,  and  it  only  depends  on  the  humor  of  a  Prefect  or 
other  subaltern  official  to  enforce  those  clauses,  close  the  stores 
of  the  Israelites,  confiscate  their  goods  and  expel  them  from  their 
homes. 


38  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

No  persecution  has,  however,  taken  place  at  Giurgewo.  The 
impression  of  such  persecution  originated  probably  in  the  reported 
murder  of  a  Jewish  family  who,  while  flying  from  Giurgewo  on 
account  of  its  being  exposed  to  bombardment  by  the  Turks,  were 
assaulted,  grossly  maltreated  and  killed  on  the  highroad.  Giurgewo 
is  now  nearly  empty  of  inhabitants  since  the  declaration  of  the  war. 
I  am,  Sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

ADOLF  STERN. 
III. 

Bucharest,  May  30,  1877. 
MR.  MINISTER: 

I  have  received  your  esteemed  note  of  the  22d  instant,  in  which 
you  inform  me,  according  to  the  report  published  by  a  Vienna 
journal,  of  the  representations  made  at  Washington,  by  an  Israel- 
itic  deputation,  to  the  President  of  the  Republic  and  the  Secretary 
of  State,  in  regard  to  certain  atrocities  alleged  to  have  been  com- 
mitted against  the  Israelites  in  the  town  of  Giurgewo,  and  request 
me  to  enlighten  my  Government  and  to  state  that  the  persecu- 
tions are  pure  invention. 

I  read  myself,  in  a  Vienna  journal,  with  surprise,  the  news  which 
you  were  pleased  to  communicate  to  me,  and  as  I  knew  that  the 
denunciations  were  unfounded,  I  did  not  think  it  necessary  to 
await  the  confirmation  of  the  statement  published  by  the  Vienna 
journal,  and,  previously  to  the  receipt  of  your  esteemed  note,  I  had 
already  enlightened  my  Government,  in  order  that  it  might  not  be 
left  under  an  erroneous  impression. 

I  am  happy  to  have  thus  fulfilled,  in  advance,  the  desire  which 
you  express  in  your  note,  but  I  must  add  that  the  murder  of  a 
Jewish  family,  which  was  recently  committed  on  the  highway 
between  Giurgewo  and  Bucharest,  seems  to  me  to  have  been  the 
source  of  the  complaints  referred  to.  I  should  therefore  be  obliged 
•  to  you,  Mr.  Minister,  if  you  would  be  pleased  to  furnish  me  with 
any  details  of  which  you  may  be  in  possession,  in  relation  to  this 
incident,  which,  being  magnified  and  distorted,  has  perhaps 
alarmed  and  surprised  the  Israelites  of  Washington. 

Be  persuaded,  Mr.  Minister,  that  you  can,  on  all  occasions,  rely 
upon  my  readiness  and  my  earnest  desire  to  dispel,  to  the  best  of 
my  ability,  any  impression  at  variance  with  the  truth,  and  calcu- 
lated to  be  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  Roumania. 

Be  pleased  to  accept,  Mr.  Minister,  the  assurance  of  my  high  con- 
sideration. STERN. 

Mr.  M.  KOGALNICEANO, 

Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  etc. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  39 

The  need  of  suffering  Jews  in  the  war  zone  was  so  great,  that 
American  Jews  were  appealed  to,  to  contribute  to  the  relief  of 
Jews  in  the  Ottoman  Empire.  In  consequence  of  a  conference 
held  in  1878,  a  special  committee  was  organized,  of  which 
Judge  Myer  S.  Isaacs  was  chairman  and  Mr.  Jacob  H.  Schiff 
treasurer,  to  collect  funds,  and  over  $7000  was  raised  and 
forwarded  to  Cremieux  for  distribution,  through  the  Alliance, 
acting  in  cooperation  with  Baron  de  Hirsch  and  his  aid,  M. 
Veneziani.  The  idea  of  having  Jewish  organizations  repre- 
sented at  Berlin,  in  connection  with  the  Congress  of  Berlin,  is 
claimed  to  have  originated  with  the  Board  of  Delegates  of 
American  Israelites,  which  suggested  laying  before  such  pros- 
pective Congress  a  full  statement  of  the  Jewish  question,  in  a 
letter  to  the  Anglo-Jewish  Association  in  February,  1878,  and 
an  interchange  of  views  to  this  end  took  place  at  London,  be- 
tween that  organization  and  Mr.  Peixotto,  who  was  then  on  his 
way  to  begin  the  performance  of  his  duties  as  United  States 
Consul  at  Lyons. 

C.  THE  INTERNATIONAL  JEWISH  CONFERENCE  AT  PARIS,  1878. 

Before  considering,  in  detail,  the  action  taken  at  and  in  con- 
nection with  the  Congress  of  Berlin  concerning  the  Jews  of 
Eastern  Europe,  it  will  be  convenient  to  disregard  chrono- 
logical order,  so  as  to  say  a  few  words  regarding  the  third 
International  Jewish  Conference,  held  at  Paris,  August  15, 
1878.  Cremieux  again  presided,  and  America  was  represented 
by  Myer  Stern,  B.  F.  Peixotto  and  Eev.  Henry  S.  Jacobs. 
Emigration  to  the  United  States  was  particularly  considered, 
especially  in  papers  prepared  by  Myer  S.  Isaacs,  Henry  Eice 
and  Myer  Stern.  European  organizations  were  warned  against 
promoting  indiscriminately  the  emigration  of  Jewish  paupers 
incapable  of  supporting  themselves,  and  plans  for  distributing 
Jewish  immigrants  were  outlined.58 

68 "  Final  Report  of  Board  of  Delegates  of  American  Israelites," 
New  York,  1879;  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  August  16  and  23,  1878; 
The  Jewish  Times,  October  11,  1878. 


40  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

III. 

THE  CONGRESS  OF  BERLIN,  1878. 

The  Russo-Turkish  War  of  1877-78,  following  the  unsuc- 
cessful Conference  of  Constantinople  of  1876,  began  with 
Russia's  declaration  of  war  against  Turkey  on  April  24,  1877, 
ostensibly  on  account  of  the  persecution  of  Turkey's  Christian 
subjects.  After  Russia  had  violated  Roumanian  neutrality, 
against  Roumania's  nominal  protests,  by  sending  her  troops 
into  the  principality  en  route  to  Turkey,  Roumania  joined  in 
the  war  against  Turkey.  The  war  ended  with  the  Treaty  of 
San  Stefano  of  March  3,  1878,  after  Turkey  had  exhibited 
unexpectedly  great,  but  futile,  powers  of  resistance,  but  the 
other  Great  Powers  were  not  represented  in  this  treaty,  and  had 
not  yet  acquiesced  in  Turkey's  recognition  of  Roumanian  inde- 
pendence, and  Austria  and  England  had  strong  interests  op- 
posed to  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano.  Accordingly 
Austria,  on  February  5,  1878,  addressed  a  circular  note  to  the 
Powers  that  had  signed  the  Treaty  of  Paris  of  1856  and  the 
London  protocol  of  1871,  suggesting  a  new  international  con- 
ference for  establishing  "the  agreement  of  Europe  on  the 
modifications  which  it  may  become  necessary  to  introduce  into 
the  above-mentioned  treaties,"  and  England,  on  April  1,  1878, 
declined  to  recognize  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano,  unless  the 
terms  thereof  were  made  the  subject  of  a  formal  agreement 
among  the  parties  to  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  and  took  steps  tend- 
ing towards  a  declaration  of  war  against  Russia.  Germany 
joined  in  these  conference  suggestions,  and,  despite  Russia's 
opposition,  such  a  Congress  became  essential,  and  was  accord- 
ingly formally  called  by  the  German  Government  on  June  3, 
1878,  to  meet  at  Berlin,  June  13,  1878.  The  Congress  lasted 
just  one  month,  with  Prince  Bismarck  presiding.  It  was 
Germany's  unexpected  failure  to  sustain  Russian  demands, 
as  expressed  in  Bismarck's  announced  purpose  of  remaining 
neutral  in  the  role  of  "  honest  broker,"  that  led  to  very  con- 
siderable deviations,  contrary  to  Russian  and  Roumanian  in- 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  41 

terests,  from  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano.  Beacons- 
field's  unusual  course  of  personally  attending  the  Congress, 
though  then  Prime  Minister,  lent  much  significance  to  the 
deliberations. 

As  pointed  out  in  Dr.  Cyrus  Adler's  "  Jews  in  the  Diplo- 
matic Correspondence  of  the  United  States,"  "  John  A.  Kasson, 
U.  S.  Minister  to  Austria,  in  an  important  dispatch  to  Secre- 
tary Evarts  under  date  of  June  5,  1878,40  suggested  that  the 
United  States  Government  should  indicate  its  approval  of 
having  the  Congress  of  Berlin  decree  equal  rights  to  the  Jews 
of  Eoumania,  and  this  letter  is  probably  the  only  official  note, 
antedating  the  assemblage  of  the  Congress,  specifically  sug- 
gesting such  course.  Mr.  Kasson  wrote  : 

It  would  be  to  the  honor  of  the  United  States  Government,  if  it 
could  initiate  a  plan  by  which  at  once  the  condition  of  American 
Hebrews  resident  or  travelling  in  Roumania,  and  the  conditions 
of  natives  of  the  same  race,  could  be  ameliorated  and  their  equality 
before  the  law  at  least  partially  assured. 

The  European  Congress  is  about  to  assemble,  and  will  be  asked 
to  recognize  the  independence  of  Roumania.  Would  there  be  any 
just  objection  to  the  United  States  Government  offering  on  its 
part,  if  the  European  powers  would  on  their  part,  make  the  same 
condition,  to  recognize  the  independence  of  that  country,  and  to 
enter  into  treaty  stipulations  with  its  government,  only  upon  the 
fundamental  preliminary  agreements: 

1.  That  all  citizens  or  subjects  of  any  such  foreign  nationality 
shall,  irrespective  of  race  or  religious  belief,  be  entitled  to  equal 
rights  and  protection  under  the  treaty  and  under  their  laws. 

2.  That  all  subjects  or  citizens  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Roumanian  Government  shall,  irrespective  of  their  race  or  religious 
belief,  have  equal  rights  of  trade  and  commerce  with  the  citizens 
or  subjects  of  the  foreig/i  governments  making  such  treaty;  equal 
rights  in  the  purchase,  consumption,  barter,  or  sale  of  the  products 
of  such  foreign  country,  and  in  sales  of  Roumanian  products  to 
such  aliens;  equal  rights  to  make  contracts  with  the  citizens  or 
subjects  of  such  foreign  government,  and  to  be  equally  protected 
by  the  laws  in  the  exercise  of  the  rights  so  secured? 

59  Publications,  supra,  No.  15,  pp.  v,  48-49. 
80  "  Foreign  Relations,  1878,"  p.  42. 


42  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

To  this  extent,  at  least,  it  seems  foreign  governments  would  be 
justified  by  international  law  and  the  law  of  self-interest;  while 
they  would  at  the  same  time  give  effect  to  the  humane  instinct  of 
all  truly  civilized  and  Christian  nations.  The  persecuting  and 
oppressive  spirit  is  so  strong  in  Roumania  against  the  Jews  that 
it  requires  united  action  by  liberal  and  constitutional  govern- 
ments, as  well  as  an  appeal  to  the  strongest  desires  of  the  Rou- 
manian people,  which  are  just  now  to  be  permitted  to  enter  the 
family  of  nations,  to  bring  relief  and  emancipation  to  this  pro- 
scribed race. 

Your  own  judgment  will  improve,  doubtless,  the  form  of  action 
above  suggested;  but  it  will  be  sufficient,  I  hope,  to  attract  your 
attention  to  a  question,  the  favorable  solution  of  which  would 
greatly  gratify  the  American  people,  and  evoke  especial  gratitude 
from  that  race  which  has  found  in  the  United  States  absolute  legal 
equality  and  security,  and  the  occasion  of  the  congress  is  most 
favorable  for  giving  it  effect,  if  approved. 

The  Congress  of  Berlin  assembled  eight  days  after  this  dis- 
patch was  written,  so  that  there  was  not  much  time  for  formal 
action  in  the  interim.  We  know,  however,  that  the  State 
Department  at  once  acknowledged  Mr.  Kasson's  letter,  saying 
"  that  the  subject  is  one  eminently  deserving  of  consideration, 
which  it  will  receive." 

Bayard  Taylor  took  up  the  duties  of  his  post  as  United 
States  Minister  to  Germany  shortly  before  the  Congress  of 
Berlin  met,  and  he  and  his  colleagues  at  other  European  capi- 
tals acted  in  line  with  Mr.  Kasson's  suggestion.  Under  date  of 
July  15, 1878,  Taylor  reported  to  the  State  Department 61  as  to 
the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  which  he  described  as  "  perhaps  the  most 
important  historical  act  since  that  of  Vienna  in  1815  " : 

The  chief  interest  which  the  Government  and  people  of  the 
United  States  have  in  the  treaty  is  its  enforcement  of  religious 
liberty  in  Roumania,  Bulgaria  and  Eastern  Roumelia.  This  is  the 
only  point  which  I  felt  at  liberty  to  present  unofficially  to  several 
members  of  the  Congress,  and  I  am  glad  to  report  that  it  was 
opposed  by  none  of  the  statesmen  present.62 

61  «  poreign  Relations,  1878,"  pp.  227-8. 

62  See  Mr.  Taylor's  impressions  of  the  Congress,  ibid.,  pp.  221-2, 
and  "  Life  and  Letters  of  Bayard  Taylor,"  Boston,  1885,  vol.  ii,  pp. 
745-7,  754. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  43 

Reports  regarding  the  Congress  and  the  significance  of  the 
treaty  provisions  were  also  transmitted  by  Mr.  Kasson  from 
Vienna/3  Mr.  Marsh  from  Rome,64  and  from  our  Minister  at 
Constantinople.65 

As  far  as  Jewish  disabilities  and  their  removal  were  con- 
cerned, the  Paris  Jewish  Conference  of  1876,  hereinbefore 
referred  to,  held  in  connection  with  the  Constantinople  Con- 
ference, had  made  arrangements  for  an  international  presenta- 
tion of  these  grievances.  However,  vigorous  opposition  had 
meantime  developed  against  the  ratification  of  treaties  with 
Roumania,  negotiated  by  various  leading  powers,  which  would 
have  had  the  effect  of  discriminating  against  Jewish  subjects 
of  such  other  powers,  by  applying  against  them,  Roumanians 
own  discriminations  against  her  own  Jewish  subjects.  Eng- 
land, France,  Italy  and  Germany  suspended  ratification,  pend- 
ing modification,  of  these  provisions,  and  in  Germany  par- 
ticularly, a  vigorous  debate  led  by  Eduard  Lasker,68  on  May 

63 "Foreign  Relations,  1878,"  pp.  50-1;  infra,  pp.  71-2. 

64  Ibid.,  pp.  475-7. 

"Ibid.,  pp.  865,  886,  894. 

66  German  anti-Semitic  enemies  of  Eduard  Lasker  have  made  the 
absurd  claim  that  his  vigorous  espousal  of  the  cause  of  equal  rights 
for  his  coreligionists  in  Roumania  militated  in  some  way  against 
his  German  patriotism.  The  mere  statement  of  this  proposition 
carries  its  own  refutation,  for  it  was  obviously  an  act  of  German 
patriotism,  to  insist  that  the  German  passport  should  be  honored  in 
Roumania,  regardless  of  the  creed  of  its  holder.  Nor  is  the 
championship  of  humanity  and  religious  liberty  even  for  distant 
climes  in  derogation  of  one's  citizenship  in  one's  own  country.  In 
fact,  however,  Lasker  was  no  less  zealous  in  struggling  for  the 
liberty  and  freedom  of  worship  of  non-Jews,  and  these  incidents  in 
his  career  were  most  beautifully  treated  by  his  friend,  Andrew  D. 
White,  in  an  address  at  his  funeral  in  New  York  in  1884,  when  he 
said  that  Lasker  was  "  one  whom  we  are  proud  to  call  in  the  highest 
sense  our  brother.  This  brotherhood  he  recognized.  No  barriers 
of  creed  could  shut  out  from  him  the  view  of  it.  Never  was  he 
more  vigorous  than  when  he  stood  up  for  the  rights  of  Roman 
Catholics  in  Parliament;  never  more  eloquent  than  when  he  stood 


44  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

14,  1878,  in  the  Reichstag,  a  full  report  of  which  has  been 
handed  down  to  us,  culminated  in  a  reference  of  the  treaty 
to  a  legislative  commission,  instead  of  ratification.67  In  Aus- 
tria and  Hungary,  Moritz  Wahrmann  and  Dr.  Ignaz  Kuranda, 
both  members  of  the  legislature,  started  movements  for  the 
proposed  abolition  of  Jewish  disabilities  through  the  forth- 
coming International  Congress,  which  elicited  assurances  from 
Count  Gyula  Andrassy  that,  if  opportunity  offered,  Austria 
would  advocate  equality  of  rights  for  all  religions  in  the 
countries  whose  affairs  the  Congress  would  deal  with,68  and 
the  German  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  *  gave  similar  assur- 
ances, as  also  the  Italian  Prime  Minister.  The  Alliance 
Israelite  Universelle,  from  its  Paris  office,  forwarded  a  vigorous 
memorial,  signed  by  Cremieux  and  his  associates,  to  the  Con- 
gress, a  copy  of  which  is  annexed  as  Appendix  III  (p.  105). 

by  the  grave  of  his  Protestant  friend  Twesten.  He  came  of  that 
race  which  has  upheld  for  thousands  of  years,  against  all  tempta- 
tions, all  sophistry,  all  obloquy,  all  cruelty,  the  idea  of  the  Divine 
unity;  and  he  loved  his  race;  but  he  rose  superior  to  all  the  envi- 
ronments of  race  and  creed.  Like  those  men  of  different  races  and 
creeds,  Baruch  Spinoza  and  Hugo  Grotius  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, like  Moses  Mendelssohn  and  Lessing  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, so  did  Eduard  Lasker  in  the  nineteenth  century  belong  to 
the  good  and  noble  and  true  souls  who  have  striven  to  make  this 
earth  better  and  more  beautiful — who,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile, 
form  the  true  elect  of  mankind,  the  very  Israel  of  God."  (The 
American  Hebrew,  January,  1884.) 

6T  See  AUgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judentums,  1878,  pp.  340,  356,  422, 
566. 

mlbid.,  pp.  387,  469-70;  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  June  28,  1878. 

69  «  rpne  Jewish  Encyclopedia,"  s.  v.  Bismarck,  quotes  von  Billow, 
German  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  as  stating  to  a  Jewish  dele- 
gation just  before  the  Congress :  "  Gentlemen,  '  toleration  '  is  an 
incorrect  word;  not  toleration  but  the  unrestricted  exercise  of  all 
their  rights  shall  we  demand  at  the  Congress  for  your  coreligion- 
ists." Contemporary  Jewish  newspapers  thus  reported  his  remark: 
Israelitische  Wochenschrift,  Magdeburg,  July  3,  1878,  p.  221;  AU- 
gemeine Zeitung  des  Judentums,  1878,  p.  426. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  45 

Lionel  de  Bothschild  addressed  an  earnest  letter  to  Lord  Bea- 
consfield,  dated  May  31,  1878,  urging  action  in  favor  of  the 
removal  of  Jewish  disabilities  at  the  forthcoming  Congress,  the 
text  of  which  has  been  preserved.70  So,  also,  a  brief  Joint 
Memorial  was  addressed  to  England's  representatives  at  the 
Congress,  dated  June  13,  1878,  by  J.  M.  Montefiore  as  Presi- 
dent of  the  London  Committee  of  Deputies  of  the  British  Jews 
and  Henry  de  Worms,  as  President  of  the  Anglo-Jewish  Asso- 
ciation." About  the  same  date,  on  June  16,  Baron  Henry  de 
Worms  made  a  public  statement  as  to  probable  action  at  the 
Congress,  as  follows :  " 

70  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  June  14,  1878. 

n  Ibid.,  June  21,  1878,  p.  10. 

nIHd.  Baron  Henry  de  Worms,  subsequently  Lord  Pirbright, 
was  enabled  to  render  services,  the  importance  of  which  should 
not  be  underestimated  in  this  connection.  While  he  was,  on  the 
one  hand,  the  President  of  the  Anglo-Jewish  Association,  which 
was  taking  a  leading  role  in  this  movement,  and  had,  as  we  have 
seen,  taken  an  important  part  at  the  Paris  Conference  of  1876,  he 
was  also  one  of  the  chief  authorities  relied  on  by  the  Conservative 
Party,  in  upholding  its  course  on  the  Eastern  Question  in  general, 
and  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  Lord  Beaconsfield  and  other  political 
leaders.  He  was  also  an  intimate  of  Count  von  Beust,  the  Austrian 
Ambassador  at  London,  and  subsequently,  at  his  request,  edited 
the  English  edition  of  the  latter's  "  Memoirs,"  in  which  von  Beust 
refers  to  his  obligations  to  de  Worms;  in  fact,  even  previous  to 
this  period,  de  Worms  had  enlisted  von  Beust's  aid  in  presenting 
the  Roumanian  Jewish  Question  to  the  British  Foreign  Office,  as 
an  English  blue  book  shows.  References  to  his  course,  published 
herein,  show  that  he  was  a  wise  and  prudent  statesman,  and 
closely  in  touch  with  all  efforts  in  this  matter,  both  English  and 
Continental,  and  even  had  important  advance  information  before 
the  Congress  met.  See  as  to  his  career,  "  The  Jewish  Encyclo- 
pedia"; necrology  in  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  January  16  and  23, 
1903,  the  English  Jewish  Year  Book  for  1903,  and  "  Dictionary  of 
National  Biography,"  2d  supplement,  vol.  i,  s.  v.  de  Worms.  Note 
also  the  references,  infra,  p.  59,  to  his  book,  "  England's  Policy  in 
the  East,"  London,  1877. 


46  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Earl  Beaconsfield  had  taken  the  liveliest  interest  in  the  future 
condition  of  those  Jews.  He  was  happy  to  say  that  there  was 
every  indication  that  the  work  of  the  Board  of  Deputies  and  the 
Anglo-Jewish  Association  would  be  crowned  with  success.  The 
Memorial  addressed  to  Earl  Beaconsfield  and  the  Marquis  of 
Salisbury  had  been  forwarded  by  the  Foreign  Office  to  Berlin  by 
Queen's  Messenger.  In  the  Memorial  they  had  given  the  widest 
scope  to  their  appeal.  They  had  pleaded  that  religious  toleration 
and  political  equality  should  be  given  to  the  members  of  all  creeds 
alike,  without  any  distinction  of  religion  whatever.  He  ought 
also  remark  that  Prince  Bismarck  had  indirectly  informed  the 
Jewish  gentlemen  who  had  drawn  his  attention  to  the  subject 
that  he  did  not  consider  any  settlement  of  the  Eastern  Question 
satisfactory,  which  did  not  place  the  Jews  of  Roumania  upon  a 
footing  of  perfect  equality  with  their  fellow  citizens.  It  would 
be  remembered  that  the  German  Parliament  had  refused  to  ratify 
a  Commercial  Treaty  between  Germany  and  Roumania,  on  the 
ground  that  the  Treaty  proposed  to  place  German  Jews  on  a  differ- 
ent footing  than  other  German  citizens.  The  opposition  to  this 
Treaty  had  been  led  by  Herr  Lasker,  himself  a  Jew.  It  would 
thus  be  seen  that  the  spirit  of  toleration  was  abroad  and  growing. 
It  must,  however,  never  be  lost  sight  of  that  the  best  way  to  suc- 
cessfully overcome  prejudice  was  by  showing  that  Jews  were 
worthy,  not  of  mere  toleration,  but  of  being  placed  upon  a  position 
of  perfect  equality  with  their  fellow  men. 

On  the  same  occasion,  Baron  de  Worms  stated  that  he  had 
been  personally  ready  to  go  to  Berlin,  to  endeavor  to  interest 
members  of  the  Congress  in  this  cause,  but  he  had  learnt  on 
high  authority  that  this  might  prejudice,  rather  than  aid,  the 
cause,  and  similar  advice  was  given  to  the  Austrian  Jewish 
delegates,  the  recommendation  being  that  they  should  make 
their  representations  to  their  own  Government.  (Israelitische 
Wochenschrift,  1878,  pp.  201,  220.)  Perhaps  "  coming  events 
had  cast  their  shadows  before,"  and  they  had  been  advised  of 
the  forthcoming  humiliation  to  which  the  Eoumanian  Govern- 
ment was  itself  to  be  subjected  by  the  Congress,  which  refused 
to  receive  its  representatives  even  as  petitioners,  until  after  it 
had  determined,  in  fact,  to  give  effect  to  Eussian  ingratitude, 
and  to  deprive  Eoumania  of  conquered  territory  ceded  to 
Eussia  by  Turkey  by  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  47 

The  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle,  however,  adopted  a  differ- 
ent course,  and  appointed  MM.  Netter,  Kann  and  Veneziani 
to  wait  on  individual  members  of  the  Congress  at  Berlin, 
Cremieux  himself  being  prevented  from  attending  by  illness. 
Dr.  Moritz  Guedemann  represented  the  Vienna  branch  of  the 
Alliance  Israelite  Unwerselle.  Probably  the  chief  Jewish 
factor  of  all,  however,  was  Baron  Gerson  von  Bleichroeder, 
who  exerted  his  potent  influence  in  this  cause  on  Prince  Bis- 
marck personally,  as  well  as  on  other  delegates,  and  his  name 
appeared  first  on  a  letter  of  thanks  to  the  Congress,  transmitted 
by  representative  Jews  after  the  clauses  relating  to  religious 
liberty  had  been  adopted.73  The  most  detailed  account  of  the 

"See  necrology  in  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  February  24,  1893; 
"  The  Jewish  Encyclopedia,"  s.  v.  Bleichroeder.  In  a  private 
letter  to  an  English  correspondent,  Bleichroeder  wrote  on  July  5, 
1878,  of  the  Jewish  emancipation  provisions  of  the  treaty:  "  The 
task  performed  by  the  Congress,  notwithstanding  the  justice  of  the 
cause,  has  not  been  an  easy  one.  It  required  the  cooperation  of  all 
the  Powers,  and  I  must  here  repeat  that  Prince  Bismarck  was  fore- 
most in  the  work  of  humanity,  and  he  has  the  greatest  merit  in  its 
accomplishment."  It  is  also  interesting  to  notice  that,  immediately 
after  the  Congress  of  Berlin  closed,  Bleichroeder  had  a  long  inter- 
view with  Count  Schouvaloff,  one  of  Russia's  plenipotentiaries,  at 
the  end  of  which  the  latter  promised  to  work  for  Jewish  emancipa- 
tion in  Russia.  See  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  supra,  and  ibid.,  August 
16,  1878,  and  Israelitische  Wochenschrift,  Magdeburg,  vol.  ix,  p. 
220,  July  3,  1878.  Julius  Bleichroeder,  a  cousin  of  Baron  Gerson 
von  Bleichroeder,  had  signed  the  call,  as  a  leader  of  the  Berlin 
Jewish  community,  for  the  Brussels  Conference  of  1874,  was  in 
correspondence  with  the  American  Board  of  Delegates,  as  above 
noted,  and  undoubtedly  kept  his  kinsman  well-informed  as  to  the 
developments  in  the  Roumanian  Jewish  situation.  Moreover, 
Gerson  von  Bleichroeder  had  been  ennobled  because  of  valuable 
services  rendered  by  him  in  1872  to  Roumania,  and  his  name 
figures  frequently  in  King  Charles'  diary,  Aus  dem  Leben  Konig 
Karls  von  Rumdnien,  often  cited  herein,  as  also  in  Prince  Hohen- 
lohe's  "  Memoirs,"  London,  1906,  and  Busch's  record  of  Bismarck's 
doings,  entitled  Tagebuchblatter,  Leipzig,  1899.  See  the  indices  of 
these  works,  as  well  as  Lucien  Wolf's  excellent  article  on  anti- 


48  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

action  on  this  point  at  the  Congress  of  Berlin,  including  ex- 
cerpts from  the  official  protocol,  and  the  assurances  given  pri- 
vately by  various  delegates,  is  to  be  found  in  Leven's  valuable 
history  of  the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle,  which  will  be  freely 
drawn  upon  hereinafter,  in  the  account  of  the  Congress  of 
Berlin,  supplemented  by  various  references  to  contemporary 
Jewish  newspapers  and  other  sources.74 

Semitism,  in  the  "  Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  llth  edition,  vol.  ii, 
p.  135,  where  reference  is  made  to  the  fact  that  he  financed  Prussia 
in  the  War  of  1866  with  Austria,  when  other  funds  were  unobtain- 
able. He  was  also  for  twenty-five  years,  covering  this  period, 
British  Consul-General  at  Berlin,  and  thus  closely  in  touch  with 
English,  as  well  as  German,  and  other  officials.  The  references  to 
him  in  the  text  herein,  particularly  in  Baron  Henry  de  Worms' 
public  statement  of  June  16,  and  in  Netter's  letters,  show  how 
close  and  important  his  relations  to  this  matter  were.  Copies  of 
telegrams  exchanged  between  him  and  Sir  Moses  Montefiore  on 
July  2,  1878,  announcing  the  adoption  of  the  then  unpublished  re- 
ligious liberty  conditions  for  Roumania  of  the  Congress  the  day 
before,  have  been  preserved,  The  Jewish  World,  London,  July  15, 
1878. 

74  See  also,  Oscar  S.  Straus'  article  on  the  Congress  of  Berlin  in 
"The  Jewish  Encyclopedia";  George  S.  Hellman's  address  before 
The  Judseans  on  this  subject  (The  American  Hebrew,  January  15, 
1909),  together  with  abstract  of  Prof.  Ferrero's  address;  B.  Bruns- 
wik's  Le  Traite  de  Berlin  annote  et  commente,  Paris,  1878;  "  Great 
Britain,  Foreign  Office:  Correspondence  relating  to  the  Congress  of 
Berlin,  Sessional  Papers,  1878,"  vol.  83,  containing  English  text  of 
the  protocol  and  the  treaty;  Hanotaux,  "  Contemporary  France," 
New  York,  1909,  vol.  iv,  pp.  323-89,  and  Le  Congres  de  Berlin,  in 
Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  October  1  and  15,  1908;  Charles  De 
Mouy's  Recits  et  Portraits  du  Congres  de  Berlin,  in  ibid.,  October 
15  and  November  1,  1904;  Twiss,  "Law  of  Nations,"  2d  edition, 
Oxford,  1884,  pt.  i,  pp.  88-144;  Milobar,  Der  Berliner  Kongress, 
Zurich,  1902;  A  d'Avril,  Negociations  Relatives  au  Traite  de  Berlin; 
French  Yellow  Book,  Paris,  1878,  entitled  Le  Congres  de  Berlin; 
Schouvaloff,  Souvenirs  inedits  du  Congres  de  Berlin  (quoted  in 
Hanotaux,  supra) ;  Bluntschli,  Le  Congres  de  Berlin  in  Revue 
du  droit  international  public,  Brussels,  1879  and  1880;  CarathSo- 
dory  Pasha,  Souvenirs  inedits  du  Congres  de  Berlin  (quoted  in 
Hanotaux,  supra) ;  T.  E.  Holland,  "  European  Concert  in  the  East- 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  49 

In  the  rearrangement  of  the  countries  of  the  Orient,  to  which 
the  Congress  was  called  upon  to  devote  itself,  it  was  necessary 
to  obtain  the  settlement  of  the  situation  of  the  Jews.  Eussia 
had  pursued  the  policy  of  dismembering  Turkey  to  her  own 
gain,  by  insisting  upon  the  necessity  of  improving  the  lot  of 
the  Christians,  whereas,  as  England  said,  in  the  famous  note 
of  her  Minister,  Lord  Salisbury,  on  April  1,  it  was  necessary 
only  to 

give  effect  to  the  policy  of  reforming  Turkey  under  the  Ottoman 
Empire,  removing  well-grounded  grievances,  and  thus  preserving 
the  Empire  until  the  time  when  it  might  be  able  to  dispense  with 
protective  guarantees.  (Reprinted  in  "Foreign  Relations  of  the 
United  States,  1878,"  p.  263.) 

Eussia  wanted  to  secure  the  welfare  of  the  Christians,  but 
not  that  of  the  Jews.  In  the  programme  of  the  Congress,  they 
were  not  considered.  The  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle  had 
occupied  itself  previously  with  the  Conference  of  Constanti- 
nople, and  the  declarations  of  Germany,  England,  France  and 
Italy  gave  great  hope.  In  case  the  condition  of  the  Jewish 
population  of  Eoumania  and  Serbia  should  come  into  the 
framework  of  the  Congress  of  Berlin,  as  Baron  Bernhard  von 
Billow  said,  in  a  statement  herein  cited,  it  was  inadmissible, 

ern  Question,"  Oxford,  1885,  and  "  Studies  in  International  Law," 
Oxford,  1898 ;  S.  P.  Duggan,  "  The  Eastern  Question,"  New  York, 
1902;  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judentums,  1878,  pp.  357,  387,  435, 
451,  469,  484,  499,  535,  545,  548,  563,  567,  596,  627,  659,  674;  Hahn, 
Bismarck,  Berlin,  1881,  vol.  iii,  pp.  119-315;  Martens,  Nouveau 
Receuil  General,  Gottingen,  1878-9,  2d  series,  vol.  iii,  pp.  276-448; 
Duke  of  Argyle's  "  The  Eastern  Question,"  London,  1878,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  136-214;  J.  R.  Young,  "  Around  the  World  with  General  Grant," 
New  York,  1879,  vol.  i,  p.  412  et  seq.;  "  Memoirs  of  M.  de  Blowitz," 
New  York,  1903;  Mary  King  Waddington,  "My  First  Years  as  a 
Frenchwoman,"  New  York,  1914,  pp.  133-155;  Bulletin  of  the  New 
York  Public  Library,  1910,  entitled  "  List  of  Works  relating  to  the 
Near  Eastern  Question  and  the  Balkan  States."  Strangely  enough 
there  has  been  no  work  in  English  or  German  conveniently  acces- 
sible which  gives  an  account  of  the  debates  at  the  Congress,  and 
there  is  none  in  French  readily  accessible  to  others  than  specialists. 


50  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

not  to  make  regulations  for  them,  since  the  Jews  belonged  to 
Turkey,  going  with  the  territory  in  which  they  were  placed, 
and  passing  under  a  new  regime.  Could  Europe  hand  over  the 
Jews  to  Serbia  or  to  Eoumania,  to  have  them  oppressed? 
Could  not  the  Congress  of  Berlin  do  at  last,  for  all  the  Jews 
settled  in  these  countries,  that  which  had  been  expected  of  the 
Conference  of  Constantinople  ? 

Of  the  three  Alliance  delegates,  Netter,  Kann  and  Veneziani, 
who  went  to  Berlin  to  intercede  with  the  plenipotentiaries 
there  assembled,  Netter  had  been  in  Constantinople  at  the  time 
of  the  Conference  in  1877,  and  Kann  and  Veneziani  were  well- 
informed,  one  regarding  the  affairs  of  the  Alliance,  the  other 
concerning  those  of  the  Orient. 

Before  the  assembling  of  the  Congress,  there  had  been 
enlisted,  the  Alliance  representatives  reported,  the  support  of 
an  influential  man  in  Berlin — von  Bleichroeder —  who,  by  his 
social  position,  had  relations  with  the  plenipotentiaries  and  a 
great  deal  of  influence  with  Bismarck.  They  began  their  pro- 
ceedings; Netter  kept  a  daily  account  of  them  in  his  letters, 
which  are  full  of  interest,  as  reported  in  Leven's  book. 

At  first  they  had  apprehensions:  would  the  best  disposed 
Powers  be  willing  to  complicate  the  questions  that  were  so 
threatening  for  European  peace,  with  which  idea  the  Congress 
was  permeated,  by  the  Jewish  question,  where  they  would  clash 
with  Russia?  What  would  Austria  do?  Her  first  plenipo- 
tentiary was  Andrassy,  the  author  of  the  discriminatory  com- 
mercial treaty  between  Austria  and  Roumania.  All  the 
plenipotentiaries  had  received  the  memorandum  of  the  Alliance 
with  LoeVs  book  on  Serbia  and  Roumania.  The  impressions 
of  Netter  and  the  other  delegates  changed  rapidly.  After  a 
visit  to  St.  Vallier,  Ambassador  from  France  and  second 
French  delegate  to  the  Congress,  Netter  wrote  on  the  llth  of 
June: 

If  every  one  thought  as  does  M.  de  St.  Vallier  about  our  co- 
religionists, our  cause  would  be  won.  He  knew  the  matter  from 
the  inside. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  51 

On  the  12:    "  Lord  Beaconsfield  is  in  excellent  humor."    On 
the  13th : 

Yesterday  Bleichroeder  saw  Prince  Bismarck;  he  hopes  that 
everything  is  in  favor  of  the  Israelites. 

On  the  16th: 

To-day  we  saw  Lord  Russell;  he  recalled  to  us  what  Lord  John 
Russell  had  done  for  the  Israelites;  he  will  support  our  cause. 

The  same  day: 

Pine  reception  by  Baron  von  Billow;  also  assurances  on  his  part. 
He  is  a  man  of  vast  intelligence  and  great  amenity;  he  spoke  to  us 
about  the  commercial  treaty,  about  the  interpretation  that  they 
wanted  to  give  it  and  of  its  withdrawal.  [It  was  a  discriminatory 
commercial  treaty  similar  to  the  one  which  Austria  had  made  with 
Roumania;  see  supra,  p.  43.] 

On  the  18th : 

To-day  we  visited  the  Prince  of  Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst.  He 
began  his  career  by  fighting  for  the  cause  of  the  Israelites  of 
Bavaria;  he  wanted  to  crown  it  by  defending  it  at  the  Congress; 
he  begged  us  to  give  him  supplementary  references,  should  the 
opportunity  occur.75  We  visited  M.  de  Launay,  the  Italian  plenipo- 
tentiary; he  was  as  cordial  as  could  be.  He  will  always  fight  for 
the  cause  of  the  Israelites,  who  in  all  countries  where  they  have 
equal  rights,  have  always  shown  themselves  equal  to  them. 

The  19th : 

This  morning  M.  Kann  saw  M.  Toize",  secretary  to  Andrassy, 
who  told  him  that  these  gentlemen  have  agreed  to  uphold  the 
cause,  which,  no  doubt,  will  be  moved  in  the  order  of  the  day  by 
Lord  Beaconsfield ;  in  any  case  Andrassy  will  support  him. 

75  It  will  be  remembered  that  Prince  Hohenlohe,  a  delegate  to  the 
Congress,  subsequently  was  Imperial  German  Chancellor.  His 
"  Memoirs,"  London,  1906,  contain  much  material  of  interest  con- 
firming the  statement  in  the  text,  including  also  the  one  made 
while  the  Congress  was  in  session  (vol.  ii,  p.  219),  as  follows: 
"  Roggenbach  thinks  that  Bismarck  is  passionately  aroused  against 
Roumania."  Again,  under  date  of  July  5,  1878  (iUd.,  p.  221) :  "  I 
had  a  visit  from  an  Israelite  of  Bucharest,  who  gave  me  some  inter- 
esting information  as  to  the  position  of  the  Jews  in  Roumania." 


52  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

The  21st: 

Baron  von  Bleichroeder  saw  Prince  Bismarck  yesterday  and  was 
assured  by  him  that  he  would  bring  the  question  before  the  Con- 
gress, and  Baron  von  Bleichroeder,  having  insisted  that  that  would 
be  Bulgaria's  opportunity,  he  received  the  answer  that  they  had 
not  yet  reached  that  question,  but  he  gave  his  word  and  said  they 
could  be  reassured. 

The  Alliance  delegates  also  occupied  themselves  with  the 
press.  They  conversed  with  the  correspondents  of  the  impor- 
tant European  newspapers;  they  kept  them  informed  them- 
selves. They  were  in  close  proximity  to  Ristitch,  the  Serbian 
representative,  and  to  the  representatives  of  Roumania, 
Bratiano  and  Cogalniceanu,  who,  having  come  to  Berlin  to 
defend  their  country  before  the  Congress,  worked  for  the  press 
at  the  same  time,  to  mislead  public  opinion  on  the  subject  of 
the  Israelites  of  their  country.  After  hesitating,  the  delegates 
of  the  Alliance  consented  to  confer  with  them ;  Ristitch  was  less 
biased  against  his  Israelitish  compatriots  than  Bratiano  was. 
He  made  a  good  impression  on  the  delegates.  They  did  not 
give  up  hope  of  getting  Ristitch  to  cheerfully  accept  the  resolu- 
tions that  they  expected  from  the  Congress.  He  could  resign 
himself  to  it;  Serbia  was  going  to  obtain  from  Congress  an 
extension  of  her  territory.  However,  the  Serbian  Minister  did 
not  know  how  to  conceal  his  hostility  to  the  Israelites ;  his  sec- 
ond conference  with  the  delegates  ended  with  a  whim  of  his, 
which  betrayed  his  project;  he  hoped  for  them  the  reestablish- 
ment  of  their  kingdom  in  Palestine,  which,  "  the  Roumanians 
say,  we  also  wish  them,  so  as  to  get  rid  of  them/'  They  had  a 
long  talk  with  Bratiano,  but  without  result;  he  knew  that  his 
country's  loss  of  Bessarabia,  determined  on  by  the  Congress, 
would  be  the  cause  of  his  losing  his  ministry. 

The  Congress  of  Berlin  had  devoted  five  meetings  to  the 
creation  of  a  Bulgaria  which  would  be  much  smaller  in  extent 
than  the  one  Russia  wanted  in  her  Treaty  of  San  Stefano,  when 
the  French  plenipotentiaries  proposed,  at  the  fifth  meeting,  on 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  53 

June  24,  1878,  with  M.  William  Henry  Waddington,"  the  first 
French  plenipotentiary,  as  their  spokesman,  two  additional 
articles,  of  which  the  first  introduced  into  the  constitution  of 
Bulgaria,  the  principles  of  1789.  The  first  was  worded  thus : 

All  Bulgarian  subjects,  whatever  their  religion  may  be,  shall 
enjoy  complete  equality  of  rights.  •  They  may  hold  all  public 

76  It  is  often  loosely  stated  that  the  credit  for  securing  the  adop- 
tion of  the  provisions  for  religious  liberty  in  the  Treaty  of  Berlin 
belongs  to  France,  and  particularly  to  her  senior  plenipotentiary, 
Waddington.  This  is  only  superficially  true,  and  it  is  difficult  to 
justify  a  conclusion  which  gives  more  credit  to  France  than  to 
England,  Germany  and  even  Italy.  It  is  true  that  M.  Waddington 
offered  these  Balkan  resolutions  at  the  Congress,  and  vigorously 
supported  them  throughout  its  sessions,  and  the  protocol  often 
speaks  of  them  as  the  French  propositions,  see  infra,  pp.  60-61, 
64,  66;  and  this  is  also  the  view  of  Hanotaux,  supra,  vol.  iv,  pp. 
367,  376,  479.  Naturally,  the  French  Jewish  delegates  of  the 
Alliance  Israelite  Universelle  have  claimed  the  chief  credit  for 
France  in  the  matter,  as  have  Jewish  writers  of  other  countries, 
for  their  own  lands.  Superficially,  Waddington's  claims  are 
strengthened  by  the  circumstance  that  M.  de  Blowitz,  in  his 
"  Memoirs,"  New  York,  1903,  p.  200,  suggests  that  Bismarck  sup- 
ported the  provisions  at  the  Congress  in  order  to  oblige  France, 
though  it  appears  from  evidence  collated  in  this  book  (which 
was  unknown  to  de  Blowitz)  that  Bismarck  had  given  assurances 
of  his  support  long  before  France  offered  them,  and  that  it  was 
at  one  time  apparently  intended  that  Beaconsfield  should  offer 
these  provisions,  and  at  another  time  that  Bismarck  himself 
should,  and  that,  in  any  event,  already  on  June  16,  Baron  Henry 
de  Worms  stated  in  England  that  adoption  of  such  provisions  was 
quite  probable,  particularly  in  view  of  Bismarck's  support.  On  the 
other  hand,  France  had  long  before  established  a  kind  of  protect- 
orate over  certain  holy  places  in  the  East,  and  was  eager  to  main- 
tain her  concessions  from  Turkey  regarding  them  and  the  related 
matter  of  protection  of  the  religious,  political  and  civil  rights  of 
minorities  in  various  Eastern  lands.  Accordingly,  when  the  Con- 
gress of  Berlin  was  being  arranged  for,  partly  in  order  to  secure 
the  maintenance  of  peace  by  attempting  to  limit  the  deliberations 
of  the  Congress  to  a  few  points  in  controversy  between  Russia, 
England  and  Austria,  and  perhaps  also  in  order  to  safeguard  these 


54  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

offices,  functions  and  honors,  and  differences  in  faith  will  not  be 
urged  against  them  as  a  ground  for  exclusion. 

The  exercise  and  public  practice  of  all  creeds  will  be  entirely 
free,  and  no  restrictions  will  be  applied,  either  on  the  hierarchical 
organization  of  different  faiths,  or  to  their  relations  with  their 
spiritual  chiefs. 

special  Turkish  "  capitulations  "  of  her  own,  and  her  own  peculiar 
Eastern  interests,  France  accepted  the  invitation  to  attend  the 
Congress  only  on  condition  that  the  Congress  should  consider 
solely  the  questions  arising  from  the  war,  and  not  the  Egyptian 
question,  for  instance,  or  that  of  the  Lebanons,  or  the  holy  places, 
not  affected  by  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano  (Hanotaux,  "  Con- 
temporary Prance,"  vol.  iv,  p.  343;  Hahn,  Bismarck,  vol.  iii,  pp. 
120,  309),  and  this  limitation  was  acquiesced  in  by  the  other 
powers,  despite  England's  wishes  to  make  the  conference  more 
comprehensive.  After  France  had  determined  to  participate 
in  the  Congress,  however,  Waddington  stated  in  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  on  June  7,  1878,  that  "  France  will  go  to  the 
Congress.  In  going,  she  will  also  remember  that  there  are  Chris- 
tians besides  the  Bulgarians  in  the  Balkan  peninsula;  that  there 
are  other  races  which,  at  least  in  some  degree,  merit  the  interest 
of  Europe."  (Annales  du  Senat  et  de  la  Chambre  des  Deputes,  June 
7,  1878;  Hanotaux,  supra,  p.  344;  Hahn,  supra,  p.  309.)  This  lan- 
guage was  certainly  comprehensive  enough  to  include  Jewish 
emancipation  in  the  Balkans,  and  was  so  construed  in  the  Jewish 
press  at  the  time  (Israelitische  Wochenschrift,  vol.  ix,  p.  193). 
France  had,  of  course,  for  many  years  previously  interested  herself 
in  this  cause,  and  Cremieux,  then  Waddington's  associate  in  the 
French  Senate,  and  other  Jewish  leaders,  did  not  neglect  to  en- 
deavor to  secure  Waddington's  assistance  for  the  Balkan  Jews. 
Contemporary  French  history  indicates,  however,  that  the  French 
Government  was  quite  undecided  about  participating  in  the  Con- 
gress at  all,  and  Mrs.  Waddington  reports  ("  My  First  Years  as  a 
Frenchwoman,"  New  York,  1914,  pp.  133-155)  that  the  Ministry 
gave  her  husband  absolutely  no  instructions  as  to  the  course  he 
should  pursue  at  the  Congress,  and,  before  and  after,  Waddington's 
associates  feared  to  burn  their  fingers  over  the  Congress.  Un- 
fortunately, Mrs.  Waddington  reports  practically  nothing  as  to 
what  occurred  at  the  Congress,  though  her  husband's  correspond- 
ence and  files  must  have  been  full  of  the  subject.  Waddington 
was,  however,  exceptionally  deeply  interested  in  and  thoroughly 
familiar  with  this  subject,  as  the  official  protocol  shows,  particu- 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  55 

The  second  article  assured  entire  liberty  "  to  religious  orders 
and  to  foreign  Catholic  bishops  "  for  the  practice  of  their  faith 
in  Bulgaria  and  in  Eastern  Eoumelia. 

The  president  decided  to  defer  these  propositions  to  a  later 
session,  after  ordering  them  printed. 

larly  because  he  himself  belonged  to  a  minority  faith  in  France, 
and  had  written,  more  than  twenty  years  before,  on  "  The 
Protestant  Church  and  Religious  Liberty  in  France,"  in  "  Cam- 
bridge Essays  for  1856."  Probably  the  championship  of  this 
cause  at  the  Congress  was  left  by  the  Powers  to  France  for 
the  further  reason  that  England  had  so  many  other  direct 
interests  there,  which  required  her  particular  attention,  un- 
like France,  and  Bismarck  preferred  ostensibly  to  play  the 
rfile  of  disinterested  friend  between  Russian  policies  and  those 
of  her  opponents.  But  the  protocol  of  the  Congress  and  the 
other  facts  herein  collated  leave  absolutely  no  doubt  as  to  the 
unhesitating  and  unequivocal  support  which  Bismarck  and  his 
German  associates  gave  to  the  cause  of  religious  liberty  at  the  Con- 
gress, and  Baron  von  Bleichroeder's  above-quoted  statement  of 
July  5, 1878,  seems  not  to  be  wide  of  the  mark,  that  it  "  required  the 
cooperation  of  all  the  Powers,  and  I  must  here  repeat  that  Prince 
Bismarck  was  foremost  in  the  work  of  humanity,  and  he  has  the 
greatest  merit  in  its  accomplishment."  It  should  be  remembered 
that  England,  France  and  Italy,  in  cooperation  with  the  United 
States,  had  several  times  made  futile  efforts,  as  has  been  seen,  to 
secure  Balkan  Jewish  emancipation,  but  now  they  secured  hearty 
support  for  this  cause  from  Germany  at  an  opportune  time.  In 
fact,  almost  the  only  instance  in  which  Bismarck  referred  to 
special  German  causes  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  Congress, 
when  he  said  on  June  22 :  "  His  Serene  Highness  thinks  it  his 
duty  to  add  that  on  this  question  he  cannot,  as  German  Plenipo- 
tentiary, remain  neutral.  The  instructions  which  he  has  received 
from  the  Emperor,  his  august  master,  previous  to  the  opening  of 
Congress,  enjoin  upon  him  to  seek  to  maintain  for  the  Christians 
at  least  the  degree  of  protection  which  the  conference  at  Contan- 
tinople  had  desired  to  secure  for  them,  and  not  to  consent  to  any 
arrangement  which  would  attenuate  the  result  obtained  for  that 
important  object."  Reference  is  hereinafter  made  to  the  fact  (p. 
59)  that  it  was  largely  Bismarck's  skillful  handling,  which  enabled 
the  Congress  to  insert  provisions  for  safeguarding  the  rights  of 
Christians  in  Asiatic  Turkey,  despite  the  more  limited  French  and 


56  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

The  protocol  added  only  "that  Count  Schouvaloff  and  M. 
Waddington  exchanged  remarks  [without  saying  what  they 
were]  about  the  import  of  these  two  propositions/' 

Then  followed  another  similar  proposition  about  the  applica- 
tion of  the  treaties  of  commerce  and  navigation  to  Bulgaria 
and  to  Eastern  Eoumelia,  made  by  Austria,  France  and  Italy. 

The  discussion  of  these  propositions  was  adjourned  after 
Prince  Bismarck  observed  that  they  ought  first  of  all  consider 
the  questions  that  might  come  up,  as  to  which  there  might  be 
a  disagreement  between  the  cabinets : 

English  propositions  on  the  subject,  and  despite  the  understanding 
that  the  Congress  would  deal  only  with  matters  presented  by  the 
Treaty  of  San  Stefano.  Of  course,  the  instructions  of  Emperor 
William  I.,  above  referred  to,  were  not  even  represented  as  apply- 
ing to  any  but  the  Christian  victims  of  religious  persecution;  and 
in  view  of  the  facts  hereinafter  narrated  (infra,  p.  75),  it  seems 
quite  certain  that  Bismarck  acted  according  to  his  own  indepen- 
dent judgment  and  sense  of  justice  in  the  matter.  His  break  with 
Lasker,  Bamberger  and  other  Liberal  leaders,  did  not  occur  till 
immediately  after  the  Congress,  and  was  therefore  no  factor  then. 
Even  Lasker,  embittered  against  the  powerful  enemy  who  had 
crushed  him  politically,  did  not  go  further  than  to  say  of  Bismarck 
that  he  was  an  anti-Semite  because  he  did  not  crush  German  anti- 
Semitism,  at  a  time  when  Lasker  thought  he  could  have  done  so. 
On  Bismarck's  relations  to  the  Jews,  see  "The  Jewish  Encyclo- 
pedia," s.  v.  Bismarck,  by  Prof.  S.  Mannheimer,  and  Anti-Semitism, 
by  Prof.  G.  Deutsch ;  Lucien  Wolf  in  the  "  Encyclopedia  Britan- 
nica,"  supra;  Busch,  Tagebuchblatter,  Leipzig,  1899;  and  Furst 
Bismarck's  Verhdltniss  zum  Glauben,  ins'besondere  zum  Juden- 
tlium,  Magdeburg,  1877,  a  pamphlet  in  which  a  series  of  articles 
with  that  title  was  reprinted  from  the  Magdeburg  Israelitische 
Woehenschrift  of  that  year.  The  man  on  the  street  is  often  in- 
clined to  attribute  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  regarding  Jewish 
emancipation  to  Beaconsfield,  because  of  his  knowledge  of  Beacons- 
field's  Jewish  birth,  and  a  comment  of  Gladstone  (infra,  p.  71) 
indicates  that  this  was  also  Gladstone's  impression.  While  no 
doubt  Beaconsfield  lent  this  phase  of  the  cause  of  religious  liberty 
at  the  Congress  his  loyal  and  hearty  support,  as  did  also  his  asso- 
ciates, particularly  the  Marquess  of  Salisbury,  he  cannot  be  held 
primarily  responsible  for  the  insertion  of  these  clauses  in  the  treaty. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  57 

As  to  those  which  have  in  view  an  advance  in  civilization,  and 
against  which  doubtless  no  Cabinet  will  have  objections  in  prin- 
ciple [those  were  Waddington's  propositions],  he  thought  that  the 
authors  of  such  propositions  ought  to  be  left  free  to  indicate  the 
time  that  would  seem  to  them  most  convenient  to  bring  them 
before  the  High  Assembly. 

One  of  the  French  plenipotentiaries,  Felix  Desprez,  on  June 
25,  proposed  a  slight  change  in  phraseology;  he  replaced  the 
words  "  Bulgarian  subjects  "  by  those  of  "  inhabitants  of  the 

England  was  compelled  to  concentrate  at  the  Congress  upon  other 
matters,  more  vital  to  her,  in  view  of  the  impending  danger  of 
warfare.  It  is  possible  that  Jewish  subjects  of  Turkey  were  par- 
ticularly in  the  minds  of  British  statesmen  when  the  words  "  and 
other  subjects  of  the  Porte  "  were  inserted  in  the  treaty  between 
England  and  Turkey,  signed  just  previously,  June  4,  1878,  by 
which  the  Sultan  promised  "to  introduce  necessary  reforms  to 
be  agreed  upon  later  between  the  two  powers,  into  the  government 
and  for  the  protection  of  the  Christian  and  other  subjects  of  the 
Porte  in  these  territories."  ("  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States,  1878,"  p.  889.)  According  to  King  Charles  (Aus  dem 
Leben  Konig  Karls,  vol.  iv,  p.  233),  Bismarck  informed  Sturdza, 
the  Roumanian  envoy,  in  July,  1879,  that  France  and  Italy  had 
initiated  these  Jewish  provisions  at  the  Congress  and  that  Ger- 
many could  not  withhold  her  support  from  such  fundamentals  of 
civilization.  When  Beaconsfield's  correspondence  is  made  avail- 
able much  light  will  doubtless  be  thrown  on  this  and  related 
questions.  It  is,  of  course,  quite  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present 
work  to  consider  the  question  of  Beaconsfield's  relations  to  the 
Jews,  and  the  supposed  influence  of  his  Jewish  origin  upon  Eng- 
land's course  in  the  Eastern  Question,  as  to  which  so  much  has 
been  written.  See  Monypenny  and  Buckle's  biography;  Lucien 
Wolf's  articles  on  Disraeli,  particularly  his  notes  in  the  "  Cente- 
nary Edition  "  of  "  Vivian  Grey  "  and  "  The  Young  Duke  " ;  Israel 
Zangwill's  "  Primrose  Sphinx  "  in  "  Dreamers  of  the  Ghetto  " ; 
Bryce's  "Studies  in  Contemporary  Biography,"  New  York,  1903; 
Froude's  "  Beaconsfield,"  New  York,  1890;  Georg  Brandes'  "  Bea- 
consfield,"  London,  1878 ;  Emma  Lazarus,  "  Was  the  Earl  of 
Beaconsfield  a  Representative  Jew?"  in  The  Century  Magazine, 
vol.  i,  p.  939;  "  The  Jewish  Encyclopedia,"  s.  v.  Benjamin  Disraeli; 
and  the  writings  of  Gladstone,  Edward  A.  Freeman,  and  others. 


58  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Principality  of  Bulgaria/'  in  Waddington's  proposition.  This 
new  designation  was  more  comprehensive. 

The  protocol  stated :  "  This  modification  is  accepted  and 
the  proposition  unanimously  adopted." 

Russia  voted  with  the  other  Powers  on  the  second  proposi- 
tion. Count  Schouvaloff  proposed  to  substitute  for  the  words 
"  religious  orders  and  foreign  Catholic  bishops/'  the  words 
"  foreign  ecclesiastics  and  members  of  religious  orders."  Lord 
Salisbury  having  expressed  the  hope  that  the  same  legislation 
would  be,  in  this  respect,  established  in  Eoumelia  and  in  other 
provinces  of  Turkey,  the  first  Turkish  plenipotentiary,  Cara- 
theodory  Pasha,  declared 

that  any  proposition  concerning  the  free  exercise  of  worship  in 
the  province  of  Eastern  Roumelia  seemed  altogether  superfluous, 
that  province  being  on  the  point  of  being  made  subject  to  the 
authority  of  the  Sultan,  and  in  consequence,  to  the  principles  and 
to  laws  common  to  all  parts  of  the  Empire,  which  established  equal 
tolerance  for  all  faiths. 

Waddington  apparently  found  justifiable  this  protest  against 
the  so-called  oppression  of  the  Christians,  which  Russia  empha- 
sized, so  as  to  excuse  before  Europe  the  crushing  of  Turkey ;  in 
view  of  the  declarations  of  the  Turkish  plenipotentiary,  he 
asked  for  an  adjournment  of  the  discussion  until  the  following 
day,  so  as  to  revise  his  proposition  before  submitting  it  to  the 
Congress. 

The  discussion  of  the  next  day  (June  26)  is  worth  recalling : 

M.  Waddington  stated  that  in  view  of  the  declaration  made 
yesterday  by  the  Turkish  plenipotentiary,  and  from  which  it 
appeared  that  the  liberty  of  the  Catholic  faith  remains  guaranteed 
in  Eastern  Roumelia  by  the  general  laws  of  the  Empire  and  by 
treaties  and  conventions,  the  French  plenipotentiaries  felt  bound 
to  present  the  following  considerations: 

As  regards  the  additional  article  which  they  have  presented, 
relating  to  the  foreign  Catholic  religious  orders,  the  French  pleni- 
potentiaries noted  the  principles  of  absolute  liberty  laid  down 
yesterday  by  the  Congress  in  favor  of  all  communions  and  all 
faiths  in  Bulgaria,  as  well  as  of  the  declaration  made,  at  the  same 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  59 

meeting  by  the  first  Turkish  plenipotentiary,  namely,  that  in 
Eastern  Roumelia  no  violation  of  rights  secured  to  foreigners  in 
the  Ottoman  Empire  will  take  place. 

Lord  Salisbury  regretted  that  the  plenipotentiaries  of  France  do 
not  follow  up  their  proposition  by  extending  their  tenor  to  all 
Turkey  in  Europe.  In  that  his  Excellency  would  have  seen  im- 
portant progress  realized. 

M.  Waddington  answered  that  the  progress  of  which  Lord  Salis- 
bury spoke  was  gained  by  the  acceptance,  at  yesterday's  session, 
of  the  first  French  proposition  which  secured  entire  liberty  of 
faith. 

Lord  Salisbury  having  remarked  that  this  proposition  concerned 
Bulgaria  only,  the  president  said  that  for  his  part,  he  wished  that 
liberty  of  faith  be  required  for  all  of  Turkey,  as  much  in  Europe 
as  in  Asia,  but  he  asked  if  the  assent  of  the  Ottoman  plenipoten- 
tiaries could  be  obtained.77 

"  As  indicated  in  the  preceding  note,  both  England  and  France 
were  embarrassed  in  phrasing  this  provision  by  the  assurances 
exacted  by  France  that  the  Congress  of  Berlin  should  confine  itself 
to  the  changes  made  by  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano  in  prior  treaties. 
This  doubtless  accounts  for  France's  limitation  of  this  provision 
to  the  Turkish  province  of  Eastern  Roumelia,  and  Lord  Salisbury's 
suggestion  that  it  should  be  made  to  embrace  all  Turkey  in 
Europe.  Bismarck's  position  enabled  him,  without  objection  on 
anyone's  part,  to  secure  a  more  comprehensive  provision  in  the 
treaty,  covering  all  Turkish  dominions,  Asiatic,  as  well  as  Euro- 
pean. By  thus  playing  off  Turkey  and  her  voluntary  acceptance  ot 
the  principle  of  religious  liberty  against  Russia  and  Roumania, 
Bismarck  greatly  strengthened  the  Jewish  cause  at  the  Congress. 
The  various  references  in  the  protocol  to  Turkey's  resentment 
and  repudiation  of  Russia's  charges  that  Turkish  persecution  of 
Christians  had  caused  the  Russo-Turkish  War  (see  infra,  p.  67), 
just  concluded  by  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano,  are  of  great  interest 
to  any  student  of  the  question  of  the  international  safeguarding 
of  religious  liberty.  They  indicate  Great  Britain's  efforts  to 
refute,  or  at  least  qualify,  Russian  charges  in  this  respect.  Over 
a  year  previously,  Baron  Henry  de  Worms  had  made  some  interest- 
ing contributions  to  the  position  of  the  Tory  party  on  this  question. 
In  his  book,  "  England's  Policy  in  the  East,"  pp.  32  to  34  are  de- 
voted to  a  rebuttal  of  these  anti-Turkish  charges,  including  quota- 
tions from  American  missionaries  in  Turkey  in  favor  of  Turkish 
tolerance  toward  them  and  Jewish  residents,  with  which  he  con- 


60  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Bismarck  well  knew  that  it  would  be  obtained;  he  evidently  was 
anxious  to  accentuate,  through  the  Ottoman  plenipotentiaries, 
their  important  declarations  of  the  preceding  day. 

Carathe"odory  Pasha  declared,  that  in  answering  M.  Waddington 
yesterday,  he  referred  simply  to  the  general  legislation  of  the 
Ottoman  Empire,  as  well  as  to  their  treaties  and  conventions. 
His  Excellency  added  that  the  tolerance  which  all  faiths  in  Turkey 
enjoyed,  admitted  of  no  doubt,  and  that  in  the  absence  of  a  more 
extended  proposition,  which  would  have  to  be  explained,  he  be- 
lieved he  was  right  in  considering  it  superfluous  to  make  special 
mention  of  Eastern  Roumelia. 

The  president  stated  that  the  Congress  unanimously  adhered 
to  the  wishes  of  Prance  to  take  action  on  the  declarations  made 
by  Turkey  in  favor  of  religious  liberty.  Such  was  the  aim  of  the 
French  plenipotentiaries,  and  they  attained  it.  Lord  Salisbury 
would  have  liked  to  have  gone  further  and  to  have  extended  the 

trasted  (p.  40)  Russia's  persecution  of  the  Jews.  In  one  of  his 
leading  addresses,  delivered  at  the  Guildhall  in  London  on  the 
achievements  of  the  Congress  of  Berlin  (The  Times,  London, 
August  5,  1878;  Hahn,  Bismarck,  vol.  iii,  p.  298),  Lord  Beacons- 
field,  in  line  with  these  arguments,  said :  "  There  was  a  body  of 
men  in  Turkey — men  of  the  highest  principle,  of  even  a  sublime 
character — men  who  devoted  their  lives  to  the  benefit  of  their 
fellow  creatures,  and  sought  no  reward  but  the  convictions  of  their 
own  consciences — and  these  were  the  American  missionaries 
(Cheers).  The  American  missionaries  were  scattered  over  every 
part  of  Turkey,  and  when  this  war  commenced — on  false  pretenses 
in  a  great  degree — (Cheers)  the  American  missionaries  addressed 
the  Emperor  of  Germany  and  said  it  was  their  duty  to  tell  him 
that  they  had  lived  and  labored  in  every  part  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire,  and  since  the  Crimean  War  and  the  Treaty  of  Paris  the 
improvement  in  the  condition  of  the  Christian  subjects  of  the 
Porte  was  most  remarkable  (Cheers).  They  mention  in  that 
document  that  regard  for  life  and  property  was  now  most  strik- 
ing. They  mention  in  that  document  that  education  was  very 
largely  pursued,  and  that  toleration  was  almost  complete 
(Cheers) ;  but  these  changes  could  only  be  effected  by  the  influence 
of  the  Sultan  himself."  See  also  as  to  protection  of  missionaries 
by  international  law,  J.  B.  Moore's  "  Digest  of  International 
Law,"  Washington,  1906,  vol.  iii,  §  521;  vol.  vi,  §  922;  0.  L.  Owens' 
forthcoming  Johns  Hopkins  Study,  "  The  Protection  of  American 
Foreign  Missionaries  by  the  United  States." 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  61 

original  proposition,  not  only  to  Bulgaria  and  Roumelia,  but  to 
all  the  Ottoman  Empire.  As  concerns  Germany,  Prince  Bismarck, 
who  had  supported  the  French  proposition,  would  also  gladly  have 
approved  that  of  Lord  Salisbury,  but  the  discussion  of  so  complex 
a  question  would  have  diverted  the  Congress  from  the  purpose  of 
its  present  session. 

Bismarck,  in  setting  forth  the  declarations  of  Turkey,  in 
order  to  support  them,  challenged  those  of  Eussia.  In  regard 
to  Bulgaria,  Count  Schouvaloff  would  have  put  himself  in 
ill-favor  by  denying  to  the  Jews,  in  the  Bulgarian  pro- 
visions, the  maintenance  of  religious  liberty  which  they  had  en- 
joyed under  the  Turkish  regime.  Therefore  he  found  it  more 
politic  to  say  that 

the  wish  of  Lord  Salisbury  to  have  religious  liberty  extended  as 
far  as  possible  in  Europe  and  Asia  seemed  quite  justifiable  to  him. 
His  Excellency  desired  that,  in  the  protocol,  mention  be  made  of 
his  adherence  to  the  wish  of  the  English  plenipotentiary,  and  he 
remarked  that  the  Congress  having  sought  to  efface  the  ethno- 
graphic frontiers  and  to  replace  them  by  commercial  and  stra- 
tegical ones,  the  Russian  plenipotentiaries  wished  all  the  more  that 
these  borders  would  not  become  religious  barriers. 

Summing  up  the  declaration  of  Eussia,  the  president  re- 
sumed the  debate  by  saying : 

That  it  would  be  entered  in  the  protocol  that  the  Congress  unani- 
mously acceded  to  the  French  proposition,  and  that  the  majority  of 
the  plenipotentiaries  voted  for  the  extension  of  liberty  of  faith. 

There  was  no  opposition.  The  French  proposition,  applied 
to  Bulgaria,  extended  logically  to  all  the  states  for  which  the 
Congress  was  about  to  make  regulations. 

At  the  meeting  of  June  28,  the  Congress  busied  itself  with 
Serbia.  The  Treaty  of  San  Stefano  had  declared  her  to  be 
independent.  The  president  asked  if  this  principle  was 
admitted. 

Caratheodory  Pasha  declared  that  Turkey  would  not  op- 
pose it, 

being  persuaded  that  this  independence  will  be  genuine  and  honest, 
that  it  will  be  assumed  by  the  countries  with  the  full  conscious- 


62  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

ness  of  the  rights,  as  well  as  the  duties,  which  it  imposes  on  them, 
for  from  thenceforth  it  must  be  respected,  and  Servia  will  not 
lessen  the  security  of  public  European  order,  which  the  bond  of 
suzerainty  had  known  how  to  create  and  maintain. 

It  was  a  good  thing  to  remind  Serbia  of  her  duties ;  she  dis- 
regarded them  for  a  long  time ;  but  that  was  not  enough. 
Lord  Salisbury  intervened  to  say 

that  he  favored  recognizing  the  independence  of  Servia,  but  thought 
it  would  be  opportune  to  stipulate,  for  the  Principality,  the  great 
principle  of  religious  liberty. 

M.  Waddington  was  still  more  explicit,  he 

admitted  the  independence  of  Servia,  but  on  condition  that  the 
vote  of  the  proposition  [which  he  read]  be  identical  with  that 
which  the  Congress  had  accepted  for  Bulgaria. 

At  this  point,  the  opposition  of  Prince  Gortschakoff,  which 
was  as  impolitic  as  it  was  violent,  was  heard : 

He  feared  that  this  text  may  have  special  reference  to  the  Israel- 
ites, and  without  manifesting  any  opposition  to  the  general  prin- 
ciples that  were  laid  down  in  it,  his  Most  Serene  Highness  would 
not  like  to  have  the  Jewish  question,  which  will  come  up  later,  pre- 
judged by  a  previous  declaration.  If  the  question  was  solely  one 
of  religious  liberty,  Prince  Gortschakoff  declared  that  it  had 
always  been  applied  in  Russia;  he,  for  his  part,  adhered  entirely  to 
this  principle  and  would  be  ready  to  extend  it  in  the  largest  way. 
But,  if  it  was  a  question  of  civil  and  political  rights,  his  Most  Serene 
Highness  asked  that  the  Israelites  of  Berlin,  Paris,  London  or 
Vienna,  to  whom  there  would  be  no  question  of  refusing  any 
political  and  civil  rights,  be  not  confounded  with  the  Jews  of 
Servia,  of  Roumania,  and  of  several  Russian  provinces,  who  were, 
in  his  opinion,  a  veritable  scourge  to  the  native  peoples.78 

78  In  Prince  Hohenlohe's  "  Memoirs,"  supra,  vol.  ii,  p.  218,  his 
diary  of  this  date  reads :  "  On  the  occasion  of  the  debate  over  the 
rights  which  Servia  should  acquire,  the  subject  of  the  Jews  was 
touched  upon;  Gortschakoff  spoke  against  them,  and  said  that  he 
distinguished  entre  juifs  et  Israelites.  The  former  were  a  plague; 
the  latter  might  be  excellent  people,  as  could  be  seen  in  Berlin  and 
London.  On  the  whole,  his  speech  was  feeble." 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  63 

Prince  Gortschakoff  wanted  religious  liberty  in  Serbia  to  be 
such  as  it  is  in  Russia,  with  the  refusal  of  civil  and  political 
rights  to  those  who  practice  a  religion  different  from  an  ortho- 
dox religion.  His  argument  did  not  gain  anything  by  being 
upheld  by  an  attack  on  the  Jews  of  Serbia,  Roumania  and  also 
Russia.  Europe  remembered  that  the  prince  and  ministers 
of  Serbia  had  spoken  well  of  the  Jews  whom  they  oppressed. 
]STo  one  needed  to  defend  them,  but  Bismarck  gave  himself  the 
sly  pleasure  of  becoming  the  defender  of  the  Russian  Jews 
against  Gortschakoff,  whom  he  did  not  like: 

The  president  [the  minutes  report],  remarked  that  it  might  be 
to  the  purpose  to  attribute  this  regrettable  condition  of  the  Israel- 
ites to  the  restrictions  placed  upon  their  civil  and  political  rights. 

This  observation  put  Gortschakoff  ill  at  ease ;  he  found  noth- 
ing better  to  do  than  to  continue  his  attack  upon  his  fellow- 
countrymen,  by  saying  that  in  certain  Russian  provinces,  the 
government — under  the  impulse  of  an  absolute  necessity, 
justified  by  experience — had  subjected  the  Israelites  to  an 
exceptional  rule,  in  order  to  safeguard  the  interests  of  the 
population. 

There  was  no  better  way  of  testing  Waddington's  proposi- 
tion. The  Congress  understood  it,  and  Waddington  said,  with 
that  mixture  of  acuteness  and  force,  with  which  he  dis- 
tinguished himself  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Congress: 

That  it  was  important  to  seize  this  solemn  occasion  to  make  the 
representatives  of  Europe  affirm  the  principles  of  religious  liberty. 
His  Excellency  added  that  Servia,  who  wanted  to  join  the  Euro- 
pean family  on  the  same  footing  as  the  other  States,  ought  first 
acknowledge  the  principles  which  form  the  basis  of  social  organi- 
zation in  all  the  governments  of  Europe,  and  accept  them  as  a 
necessary  condition  of  the  favor  which  she  solicited. 

Perhaps  the  lesson  was  heeded  by  Gortschakoff ;  he  weakened 
his  previous  declaration  by  saying  that 

civil  and  political  rights  could  not  be  assigned  to  the  Jews  in 
Servia  in  an  absolute  way. 


64  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Count  Schouvaloff  understood  that  Gortschakoff  had  not 
sufficiently  weakened  his  first  remarks ;  he  said  that 

the  remarks  of  the  Prince  did  not  constitute  a  fundamental  opposi- 
tion to  the  French  proposition; 

he  considered  it  impolitic  to  let  it  be  thought  that  Russia 
rejected  what  Waddington  had  called 

the  principles  which  are  the  basis  of  social  organization  in  all  the 
governments  of  Europe; 

he  also  added  that 

the  Jewish  element,  which  was  excessive  in  certain  Russian  prov- 
inces, had  been  perforce  the  object  of  a  special  provision ;  but  his 
Excellency  hoped  that,  in  future,  it  would  be  feasible  to  avert  the 
unquestionable  inconveniences  pointed  out  by  Prince  Gortschakoff, 
without  trenching  upon  religious  liberty,  which  Russia  wished  to 
develop. 

Then  followed  the  declarations  of  Germany,  Italy,  Austria 
and  Turkey. 

Prince  Bismarck  adhered  to  the  French  proposition,  by 
declaring  that 

the  assent  of  Germany  is  always  given  for  every  motion  favorable 
to  religious  liberty. 

Count  de  Launay,  said  in  Italy's  name, 

that  he  was  eager  to  adhere  to  the  principle  of  religious  liberty, 
which  formed  one  of  the  essential  bases  of  the  institutions  of  his 
country,  and  that  he  joined  in  the  declarations  made  by  Germany, 
Prance  and  Great  Britain. 

The  protocol  stated  that 

Count  Andrassy  expressed  himself  as  being  of  the  same  opinion 
and  that  the  Ottoman  plenipotentiaries  did  not  raise  any  objection. 

Prince  Gortschakoff  was  completely  defeated.  Prince  Bis- 
marck took  pains  to  emphasize  the  fact : 

After  having  ascertained  the  results  of  the  vote,  he  declared  that 
the  Congress  admitted  the  independence  of  Servia,  but  on  condition 
that  religious  liberty  will  be  recognized  in  the  Principality.  His 
Serene  Highness  added  that  the  Committee  on  Editing,  in  formu- 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  65 

lating  this  decision,  would  have  to  express  the  connection  estab- 
lished by  the  Congress,  between  the  proclamation  of  Servian  inde- 
pendence and  the  recognition  of  religious  liberty  . 

At  last  Roumanians  turn  came.  The  vote  on  Serbia  had 
not  reassured  the  delegates  of  the  Alliance.  They  feared 
Russia's  opposition;  they  distrusted  Austria.  Eoumania  had 
just  lost  Bessarabia ;  she  claimed  to  have  been  poorly  compen- 
sated by  having  had  Dobroudja  transferred  to  her.  But  could 
she  still  hope  for  success,  for  two  days  before  the  determina- 
tion, on  June  28,  von  Billow  had  said  to  Netter :  "  The  pleni- 
potentiaries have  all  agreed  to  demand  of  Eoumania  what  they 
have  demanded  of  Serbia;  it  is  a  question  of  principle."  It 
was,  in  fact,  decided  by  the  clever  order  of  business  that  the 
Congress  had  established. 

It  had  been  decided  for  Bulgaria,  without  the  possible  con- 
tradiction of  the  government  which  constituted  it ;  it  was  just 
the  same  for  Serbia,  which  the  Congress  had  treated  so  lib- 
erally. Could  the  Congress  settle  things  differently  for  Rou- 
mania  ? 

At  the  meeting  of  July  1,  the  Congress  listened  to  the 
Roumanian  delegates,  Cogalniceanu  and  Bratiano,  who  strove 
to  gain  the  favor  of  Europe,  after  the  quarrel  they  had  had 
with  her  in  regard  to  the  Jewish  question.  They  did  not  say 
a  word  about  it,  while  they  developed  their  protests,  the  prin- 
cipal one  being  against  the  retrocession  of  Bessarabia  to  Russia. 

Immediately  after  their  departure,  Prince  Bismarck  asked 
the  Congress 

if  it  thought  it  proper  to  recognize  the  independence  of  Roumania, 
under  what  conditions  it  would  make  this  important  decision,  and 
if  the  conditions  had  to  be  the  same  as  those  already  established 
by  the  Congress  for  Servia. 

M.  Waddington  declared 

that,  faithful  to  the  principles  that  had  inspired  them  so  far,  the 
French  plenipotentiaries  asked  that  the  Congress  impose  the  same 
conditions  on  Roumanian  independence  as  on  Servian  independ- 
ence. His  Excellency  did  not  overlook  the  local  difficulties  which 


66  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

exist  in  Roumania,  but,  after  having  carefully  examined  the  argu- 
ments that  can  be  turned  to  account  in  one  way  or  another,  the 
French  plenipotentiaries  deemed  it  preferable  not  to  swerve  from 
the  grand  rule  of  equality  of  rights  and  liberty  of  worship.  It 
would  be  difficult,  moreover,  for  the  Roumanian  government  to 
reject,  in  its  territory,  the  principle  that  Turkey  recognized  for  her 
own  subjects.  His  Excellency  thought  that  there  was  no  reason  to 
hesitate,  that  Roumania,  asking  to  join  the  great  European  family, 
ought  to  accept  the  obligations,  and  even  the  drawbacks  of  the 
position,  the  benefits  of  which  she  claimed,  and  that  for  a  long  time 
there  would  not  be  found  again  an  opportunity  so  solemn  and 
decisive  to  affirm  anew  the  principles  which  constitute  the  honor 
and  security  of  civilized  nations.  As  for  the  local  difficulties,  the 
first  plenipotentiary  of  Prance  deemed  that  they  would  be  more 
easily  surmounted  when  these  principles  will  have  been  recognized 
in  Roumania,  and  when  the  Jewish  race  shall  have  learnt  that  it 
has  nothing  to  hope  for,  but  from  its  own  efforts,  and  from  the 
union  of  its  interests  with  those  of  the  indigenous  population.  M. 
Waddington  closed  by  urging  that  the  same  conditions  of  political 
and  religious  order  determined  on  for  Servia  be  equally  imposed 
upon  the  state  of  Roumania. 

Prince  Bismarck  was  the  first  to  support  Waddington, 
making  allusion  to  the  principles  of  public  right  embodied  in 
the  constitution  of  the  German  Empire  and  to  the  interest  at- 
tached by  public  opinion  to  the  application  in  their  foreign  policy, 
of  the  same  principles  observed  in  internal  affairs,  and  he  declared 
his  adhesion  in  the  name  of  Germany,  to  the  French  proposition. 

All  the  plenipotentiaries  assented  to  this  proposition.  Count 
Andrassy  accepted  it,  as  the  others  did.  Lord  Beaconsfield's 
declaration  was  particularly  energetic.  He  said : 

That  he  gave  his  complete  support  in  the  name  of  the  English 
Government,  to  the  French  proposition.  His  Excellency  could  not 
suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  the  Congress  would  recognize  the 
independence  of  Roumania  apart  from  this  condition. 

The  Italian  plenipotentiaries  made  the  same  declaration. 

At  last  Prince  Gortschakoff — who  would  have  believed  it  ?— 
rallied  entirely  to  this  proposition, 

referring  to  the  expressions  which  prompted  the  French  proposi- 
tion and  which  gave  the  greatest  latitude  to  religious  liberty.    It 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  67 

was  true  that  Russia  had  not  yet  obtained  the  retrocession  of 
Bessarabia.  That  was  another  condition  of  Roumanian  independ- 
ence, of  which  Count  Schouvaloff  reminded  the  Congress. 

The  Ottoman  plenipotentiaries  did  not  raise  any  objection 
to  the  principles  laid  down  by  the  French  plenipotentiaries, 
and  the  president  stated  that  the  Congress  was  unanimous  in 
not  according  independence  to  Eoumania  except  on  the  same 
conditions  as  were  imposed  on  Serbia. 

There  was  an  epilogue  to  this  chapter  of  the  history  of  the 
Congress.  At  the  meeting  of  the  4th  of  July,  M.  Ristitch, 
representing  Serbia,  advised  the  Congress  that  Prince  Milan 
had  authorized  him  to  declare  that  the  Serbian  Government 
would  seize  the  first  opportunity,  after  the  conclusion  of  peace, 
to  abolish  by  legal  means  the  last  restriction  still  existing  in 
Serbia,  relative  to  the  position  of  the  Jews. 

The  president,  without  wishing  to  enter  into  an  examination 
of  the  question,  observed  that  the  words  "  by  legal  means  " 
appeared  to  be  a  reservation,  to  which  he  called  the  attention  of 
the  High  Assembly.  Prince  Bismarck  thought  it  right  to  de- 
clare that  in  no  case  can  this  reservation  derogate  from  the 
authority  of  the  decisions  of  the  Congress. 

At  this  meeting,  another  incident  in  regard  to  Lord  Salis- 
bury's proposition  was  brought  to  notice, 

to  apply  to  the  Ottoman  Empire  the  principles  adopted  by  the 
Congress  for  Servia  and  Roumania. 

Was  not  this  proposition  made  in  order  to  get  the  first 
Turkish  plenipotentiary  to  read  a  communication  which  he 
had  just  received  from  his  government?  These  were  the 
terms  thereof: 

In  view  of  the  declarations  made  in  the  Congress  under  various 
circumstances  in  favor  of  religious  tolerance,  you  are  authorized 
to  state  that  the  sentiments  of  the  Sublime  Porte  on  this  point  are 
entirely  in  harmony  with  the  objects  sought  by  Europe.  Its  most 
steadfast  traditions,  its  secular  policy,  the  instinct  of  its  popula- 
tions, all  tend  to  this  result.  Throughout  the  whole  Empire, 
religions  widely  differing  are  professed  by  millions  of  the  Sultan's 


68  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

subjects,  and  no  one  has  been  annoyed  in  his  faith  or  in  the  exer- 
cise of  his  creed.  The  Imperial  Government  is  determined  to 
maintain  this  principle  in  all  its  force,  and  to  give  it  all  the  exten- 
sion it  admits  of. 

This  was  the  protest  of  Turkey  against  the  Power  that  had 
conquered  and  crushed  her.  She  did  not  wish  that  the  safety 
of  the  Christians  should  be  made  the  pretext  for  the  war  which 
the  Congress  ended,  and  which,  without  the  intervention  of 
Europe,  would  have  resulted  in  her  dismemberment.79 

Turkey  agreed  to  the  proposition  of  Lord  Salisbury,  but 
desired  it  to  appear  in  the  text  that  the  principles  in  question 
expressed  the  legislation  of  that  Empire  in  contrast  to  that  of 
Serbia  and  Eoumania,  and  that  the  provisions  were 
in  conformity  with  the  declarations  of  the  Porte  and  with  the 
previous  stipulations,  which  it  declared  itself  willing  to  maintain. 

Lord  Salisbury,  after  having  remarked  that  these  provisions 
have  not  always  been  observed  in  practice,  accepted,  and  the 
Congress  adopted  the  amendment  of  the  Porte. 

After  their  adoption,  the  decisions  of  the  Congress  were  sent 
back  to  the  Committee  on  Editing.  At  the  meeting  of  July  10, 
the  reporter  of  this  committee,  M.  Desprez,  stated  that  the 
article  dealing  with  the  equality  of  rights  and  freedom  of 
religious  worship  had  given  rise  to  some  difficulties  in  draft- 
ing ;  that  this  article  applied  equally  to  Bulgaria,  Montenegro, 
Serbia  and  Eoumania,  and  that  the  Drafting  Commission  had 
to  find  a  single  formula  to  suit  different  situations;  it  was 
particularly  difficult  to  make  it  include  the  Eoumanian  Jews 
whose  situation  was  undetermined  in  point  of  nationality.  He 
added  that  Count  de  Launay 

aiming  to  prevent  any  mistake,  had  suggested,  in  the  course  of  the 
discussion,  the  insertion  of  the  following  phrase:  "The  Jews  of 
Roumania,  in  so  far  as  they  do  not  belong  to  a  foreign  nationality, 
acquire  by  full  right  Roumanian  nationality." 

M.  de  Launay  wanted  to  prevent  the  difficulties  that  Eou- 
mania had  already  raised  and  which  she  was  about  to  aggra- 

79  See  note  77. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  69 

vate,  concerning  the  nationality  of  the  Roumanian  Jews; 
this  phraseology  certainly  was  better  than  that  which  had  been 
adopted  and  it  would  have  prevented  the  very  subterfuge  sub- 
sequently resorted  to  by  Roumania  to  evade  the  provision  as 
adopted. 

But  Prince  Bismarck  pointed  out 

the  inconvenience  which  would  attend  the  modification  of  the 
resolutions  adopted  by  the  Congress  and  which  formed  the  basis  of 
the  work  of  the  Committee  on  Revision.  It  was  necessary  that  the 
Congress  oppose  every  attempt  to  revert  to  the  original  question. 

M.  Desprez  added :  "  That  the  committee  had  preserved  the 
original  version  which  seemed  to  it  to  be  of  a  nature  to  con- 
ciliate all  the  interests  concerned,"  and  M.  de  Launay  con- 
fined himself  to  asking  for  the  insertion  of  his  proposition  in 
the  protocol. 

Prince  Bismarck  was  right  in  fearing  a  new  debate.  In  fact, 
Prince  Gortschakoff 

recalled  observations  that  he  had  made  at  a  preceding  session,  in 
regard  to  the  political  and  civil  rights  of  the  Jews  in  Roumania. 
He  did  not  wish  to  renew  his  objections,  but  he  desired  to  state 
again  that  he  did  not,  on  this  point,  share  in  the  opinions  ex- 
pressed in  the  treaty. 

The  final  text  of  the  treaty  was  more  exact  than  its  original 
version.  For  each  of  the  four  countries  it  was  settled  in  the 
following  terms : 

FOR  BULGARIA. 

V.  The  following  points  shall  form  the  basis  of  the  public  law  of 
Bulgaria: 

The  difference  of  religious  creeds  and  confessions  shall  not  be 
alleged  against  any  persons  as  a  ground  for  exclusion  or  in- 
capacity in  matters  relating  to  the  enjoyment  of  civil  and  political 
rights,  admission  to  public  employments,  functions  and  honors,  or 
the  exercise  of  various  professions  and  industries  in  any  locality 
whatever.  The  freedom  and  outward  exercise  of  all  forms  of 
worship  are  assured  to  all  persons  belonging  to  Bulgaria,  as  well 
as  to  foreigners,  and  no  hindrance  shall  be  offered  either  to  the 


70  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

hierarchical  organization  of  the  different  communions  or  to  their 
relations  with  their  spiritual  chiefs. 

The  same  formula  was  used  for  Serbia,  Montenegro  and 
Roumania,  with  one  difference,  that  is,  for  those  governments, 
already  existing,  it  was  not  said  that  these  provisions  should 
form  the  basis  of  their  public  law,  but  that  their  independence 
was  recognized  on  the  same  condition.  The  provision  as  to 
Roumania  (Article  XLIV)  added: 

The  subjects  and  citizens  of  all  the  Powers,  traders  or  others, 
shall  be  treated  in  Roumania  without  distinction  of  creed  on  a  foot- 
ing of  perfect  equality. 

The  work  of  the  Congress  of  Berlin  [says  M.  Leven,  p.  230]  was 
considerable:  it  had  introduced  into  international  law  the  prin- 
ciples which  the  French  Revolution  had  put  into  the  Declaration  of 
the  Rights  of  Man;  united  Europe  had  sanctioned  them.  Russia 
would  have  feared  to  place  herself  outside  the  pale  of  civilized 
nations,  if  she  had  not  ended  by  doing  them  homage.  She  had  been 
about  to  concede,  through  one  of  her  plenipotentiaries,  the  hope 
that  she  would  make  her  own  law  accord  with  them.  The  thing 
achieved  was  that  these  principles  became,  by  the  wish  of  Europe, 
the  basis  of  public  law  for  the  new  governments,  and  for  the 
others,  the  condition  of  their  independence.  That  was  a  benefit 
for  all  the  peoples,  and,  for  Judaism,  a  unique  act  in  its  history, 
the  solemn  charter  of  its  enfranchisement.  Fifteen  years  of 
effort  and  of  persevering  strife  here  found  their  reward. 

The  Alliance  thanked  the  Congress  and  the  plenipotenti- 
aries, particularly  Waddington,  who  had  most  valiantly  de- 
fended its  cause.  In  acknowledging  its  expression  of  gratitude 
the  French  plenipotentiary,  de  St.  Vallier,  denned  the  role  of 
France : 

In  defending  and  bringing  about  the  triumph  of  the  cause  of  the 
Israelites  in  Roumania,  Servia  and  Bulgaria  before  the  Congress, 
we  have  defended  the  cause  of  justice,  humanity  and  civilization. 
We  have  done  it  with  the  consciousness  that  we  are  performing 
an  act  of  justice,  for  which  it  fell  to  our  dear  France,  the  spokes- 
man of  all  liberal  and  generous  causes,  to  take  the  initiative,  and 
we  have  had  the  good  fortune  of  meeting  with  the  assent  and  the 
unanimous  vote  of  the  members  of  the  Congress.  Liberty  of  faith, 
respect  for  all  religions,  equality  of  civil  and  political  rights  with- 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  71 

out  distinction  of  creed,  freedom  of  the  professions,  those  are  the 
grand  principles  that  we  are  striving  to  have  recognized  all  over, 
and  in  favor  of  which  we  have  been  fortunate  in  meeting  with  a 
unanimous  acceptance.  (Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judentums,  1878, 
p.  469;  Leven,  supra,  p.  230  et  seq.) 

The  German  Union  of  Jewish  Congregations  similarly  ex- 
pressed its  appreciation  to  Bismarck  for  his  services  at  the 
Congress,  and  the  British  Jewish  societies  theirs  to  Beacons- 
field  and  Salisbury.80 

Our  "  Foreign  Relations," 81  contains  a  report  by  Mr.  Kasson, 
from  Vienna,  dated  August  3,  1878,  as  to  several  conclusions 
of  the  Congress  of  Berlin,  particularly  interesting  to  our  Gov- 
ernment ;  he  wrote : 

Absolute  freedom  and  equality  of  religious  faith  and  profession 
for  all  forms  of  faith  and  worship,  and  of  the  persons  adhering  to 
these  different  forms  of  faith  are  expressly  stipulated  in  Bulgaria 
(Article  V),  in  Montenegro,  in  Servia  and  in  Roumania,  in  identi- 

80  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judentums,  1878,  p.  467,  469-470;  The 
Jewish  Chronicle,  July  26, 1878.  In  the  official  letter  of  transmittal 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress,  the  Marquess  of  Salisbury  ex- 
pressly mentioned,  as  one  of  its  main  achievements,  those  clauses 
relating  to  religious  liberty.  He  wrote:  "  Provisions  having  for 
their  object  to  insure  entire  equality  of  all  religions  before  the  law 
have  been  applied  to  all  the  territories  affected  by  the  Treaty."  It 
is  interesting  to  observe  that  Gladstone,  despite  his  vigorous  oppo- 
sition to  most  of  the  conclusions  of  the  Congress  of  Berlin,  ex- 
pressly approved  in  Parliament  of  the  provisions  for  Jewish  eman- 
cipation (Hansard's  Debates,  third  series,  vol.  242,  p.  678).  See 
Gladstone's  letters  on  the  subject  reprinted  in  The  Jewish  Chron- 
icle, December  26,  1879.  The  biographers  of  both  Gladstone  and 
Beaconsfield  ought  to  note  the  interesting  circumstance  that, 
despite  the  severe  attacks  exchanged  between  these  two  leaders  at 
this  period,  Gladstone  wrote  a  letter  to  The  Jewish  Chronicle  (pub- 
lished in  its  issue  for  August  16,  1878),  in  answer  to  an  enquiry 
regarding  the  above-described  address,  in  which  he  said :  "  My 
words  described  Lord  Beaconsfield's  conduct  about  Jewish  dis- 
abilities as  honorable  to  him,  as  I  think  it,  and  I  was  glad  of  an 
opportunity  of  so  describing  it."  Thus  both  the  Conservative  and 
Liberal  leaders  in  England  expressly  approved  of  these  provisions. 

S1 1878,  pp.  50-1. 


72  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

cal  phrases By  Article  LVII  religious  liberty  and  the  per- 
sonal equality  of  the  adherents  of  all  the  religious  rites  are  stipu- 
lated and  declared  for  all  the  provinces  of  the  Turkish  dominions. 
You  will  observe  in  reading  the  model  Article  V  how  completely 
that  equality  of  religious  right  is  expressed.  I  wrote  you  before 
the  meeting  of  the  Congress  in  respect  to  the  propriety  and  possi- 
bility of  ameliorating  the  condition  of  the  Jews  in  those  princi- 
palities, by  coming  to  accord  with  European  governments  upon 
some  clause  of  a  treaty  in  which  this  could  be  secured  as  a  con- 
dition of  the  recognition  of  their  independence  [supra,  pp.  41-42]. 
This  result  has  been  attained  by  the  great  powers  in  the  Berlin 
Treaty;  but  it  remains  to  give  effect  to  it  by  a  change  of  the  laws 
in  the  several  principalities.  Unless  and  until  this  is  done,  it  would 
be  wise  to  incorporate  the  provisions  in  substance  in  the  case  of  a 
government  which  is  not  a  party  to  the  Berlin  Treaty. 

M.  Dufaure,  the  French  premier,  in  his  official  letter  of 
July  13,  1878,  to  Waddington  on  the  achievements  of  the  Con- 
gress of  Berlin,  singles  out  these  provisions  for  religious 
liberty  and  equality.82  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Cardinal 
Franchi,  Papal  Secretary  of  State,  sent  a  special  letter  of 
appreciation  to  Waddington,  the  Protestant,  for  the  provisions 
as  to  religious  liberty  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,83  and  the  latter 
emphasized  the  necessity  of  inserting  these  clauses  in  debates 
in  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies.84 

After  the  decisions  of  the  Congress,  the  delegates  of  the 
Alliance  had  nothing  more  pressing  to  do  than  to  attempt  a 
reconciliation  between  the  delegates  of  Serbia  and  Koumania 
and  the  Israelites  of  these  countries. 

Netter  relates  that  there  was  no  trouble  in  making  M. 
Eistitch  admit  that  the  decision  of  the  Congress  was  advan- 
tageous for  Serbia.  Eistitch  promised  to  watch  its  loyal 
application.  He  kept  his  promise.  In  a  circular  of  the 
Minister  of  Justice,  dated  May  4,  1884,  are  found  the  follow- 

82  French  Yellow  Book,  Congres  de  Berlin,  1878,  p.  297. 

83  Ibid.,  p.  299. 

84  Journal   Officiel   de   la  Republique  Franc.aise,   1879,   p.    7892, 
August  1. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  73 

ing  words,  indicating  the  scope  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  and  the 
diplomatic  agreements  that  are  connected  with  it : 

These  treaties  have  been  ratified  by  our  legislative  body,  and 
consequently  have  become  laws  of  the  country,  binding  for  the 
courts,  as  they  are  for  the  other  authorities  of  Servia.  If  they 
are  contradictory  of  the  old  laws,  it  goes  without  saying  that 
these  earlier  ones  should  be  considered  abolished  and  that  the  new 
ones  only  should  be  applied. 

As  for  Bulgaria,  her  constitution  of  January,  1879  (like 
that  of  Eastern  Roumelia,  adopted  in  March,  1879),  recog- 
nized for  every  one  born  in  Bulgaria,  and  not  subject  to  foreign 
protection,  the  title  of  Bulgarian  subject,  and  proclaimed  all 
Bulgarians  equal  before  the  law.  M.  Leven  says  (p.  232)  : 

For  a  time  it  seemed  possible  to  come  to  an  understanding  with 
Bratiano  and  Cogalniceanu.  Cogalniceanu  was  more  politic  than 
Bratiano.  Netter  called  Bratiano  a  rhetorician,  while  he  praised 
Cogalniceanu's  suppleness.  "  He  tries,"  says  Netter,  "  to  make  the 
best  of  a  situation  which  cannot  be  improved,  but  which  he  cannot 
avoid.  He  foresaw  what  this  association  of  the  pot  of  earth  with 
the  pot  of  iron  would  produce,  the  alliance  of  Roumania  with 
Russia;  it  was  repugnant  to  Bratiano  also.  It  would  have  been 
arranged  long  ago,  if  it  had  depended  only  on  him.  Several 
months  ago  he  said  to  his  colleagues  that  the  Jewish  Question 
would  be  settled  by  others  if  they  would  not  get  the  start;  the  past 
is  past;  so  much  the  better,  perhaps,  but  before  your  enemies 
excuse  this  foreign  intervention  in  your  favor,  secure  an  exten- 
sion of  your  frontier  to  Dobroudja.  Take  the  map,  draw  for  us 
in  pencil  what  is  offered  and  what  is  wanted;  state  the  cost.  All 
this  was  done  in  an  instant  with  remarkable  brightness." 

He  was  mistaken  as  to  the  role  of  the  Alliance.  It  went  to 
Berlin  only  to  defend  the  rights  of  the  Israelites;  trading,  as  pro- 
posed by  Cogalniceanu,  did  not  enter  any  more  into  its  designs  than 
it  did  into  its  power.  This  conversation  was  interrupted  by  Bra- 
tiano, coming  to  announce  that  the  Congress  had  established  the 
limits  of  Roumania.  Cogalniceanu  accepted  more  resignedly  than 
Bratiano  did  the  resolutions  of  the  Congress.  They  were  not 
respected  by  Roumania;  the  public  authorities  had  but  one  pur- 
pose, which  was  to  evade  them.  It  is  quite  a  history  to  relate. 


74  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

As  already  pointed  out  in  the  passage  from  Leven's  valuable 
history,  Bulgaria,  Serbia  and  Turkey  observed  the  conditions 
of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  while  Roumania  resorted  to  one  trick 
and  device  after  another  to  violate  them  and  aggravate  the 
condition  of  the  Jews.  Much  light  upon  Roumanians  course  is 
thrown  by  extracts  from  the  published  journal  of  King  Charles 
of  Eoumania,  hereinbefore  cited,  entitled  Aus  dem  Leben 
Konig  Karls  von  Rumanien.  It  is  recorded  there  that  Jewish 
emancipation  aroused  no  such  opposition  in  Serbia,  as  it  did 
in  Roumania,85  and  a  letter  of  Prince  Alexander  of  Bulgaria  to 
King  Charles  of  Roumania,  dated  August  10,  1879,8*  contains 
the  following  significant  passage  regarding  Bulgaria : 

While  I  have  been  an  enemy  of  the  Berlin  Treaty  [with  respect 
to  its  provisions  in  favor  of  the  Jews],  I  have  nevertheless  com- 
pletely adopted  it  in  my  new  position;  I  have  shaped  my  mission 
in  the  most  pronouncedly  European  spirit  possible,  and  require 
equal  rights  to  be  accorded  to  all. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  Roumania  these  provisions  aroused 
vehement  and  continuous  opposition,  even  to  the  point  of  a 
proposal  to  reject  independence  on  these  terms.  Prince  Karl 
Anton,  the  father  and  chief  adviser  of  the  ruler  of  Roumania, 
wrote  to  him  as  early  as  July  26,  1878,87  regarding  the  Jewish 
provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  that  they  are  merely 
humane  generalities.  It  is  left  for  the  legislative  body  alone  to 
phrase  them,  and  1  am  convinced  that  later  on,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Alliance  Israelite,  no  rooster  will  crow  over  the  form  in 
which  these  provisions  will  be  phrased. 

For  some  time,  however,  the  Powers  declined  to  accept  the 
constitutional  provisions  adopted  by  Roumania  to  carry  out,  or 
rather  to  evade,  these  provisions,  England,  France  and  Ger- 
many being  particularly  emphatic  regarding  their  inadequacy, 
but  they  were  finally  misled  into  accepting  Roumanian  assur- 

88  Vol.  iv,  p.  86. 

88/Z>itf.,  p.  245.  Official  Serbian  announcements  and  assurances 
were  similar.  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  October  4  and  December  20, 
1878. 

87  Aus  dem  Leben  Konig  Karls,  vol.  iv,  p.  87. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  75 

ances  that  they  would  be  liberally  enforced  and  extended ;  * 
and  the  United  States  seems  to  have  been  the  last  great  power 
to  enter  into  a  treaty  with  Eoumania  for  this  reason,89  just  as 
she  was  the  first  power,  not  excepting  France,  to  establish  abso- 
lute religious  liberty.  King  Charles'  journal  contains,  under 
date  of  July  25,  1879,*°  a  transcript  of  a  letter  from  Emperor 
Wilhelm  I.,  of  Germany,  to  the  Empress,  which  the  Emperor 
suggested  might  be  shown  to  King  Charles'  father,  a  kinsman 
of  the  Imperial  Hohenzollerns,  in  which  the  Emperor  said : 

With  regard  to  Roumania,  I  have,  as  you  know,  from  the  outset 
most  strongly  disapproved  of  the  resolution  of  the  Congress  con- 
cerning the  Jewish  question,  though  only  after  the  blow  had 
fallen,  since  I  was  not  then  at  the  helm.  Since  then  I  have  of 
course  only  had  to  support  the  strict  execution  of  the  resolutions 
of  the  Congress,  but  I  have  demanded  at  every  opportunity  that 
no  pressure  be  used  in  this  matter. 

Elsewhere,  Prince  Karl  Anton  informed  his  son  that  the 
Emperor  told  him  that,  if  he  had  not  been  suffering  from  his 
wounds  during  the  Berlin  Congress,  he  would  never  have 
consented  to  that  extension  of  the  Jewish  question,  and  the 
Prince  added  that  he  was  convinced  that  Bismarck  did  not 
consult  the  Emperor  in  the  matter  at  all,  or  at  least  did  not 
report  it  to  him  fully,  and  that  the  Emperor  was  surprised  to 
learn  that  Germany  was  even  more  insistent  than  England 
upon  strict  Eoumanian  enforcement  of  the  religious  rights 
provisions  of  the  treaty.91 

88  See  infra,  pp.  123  et  seq.,  141  et  seq. 

89 "  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1880,"  pp.  xii,  35-6, 
42-3,  51-3,  818. 

90  Aus  dem  Leben  Konig  Karls,  supra,  p.  236. 

91  IUd.,  p.   224.     Princess  Radziwill,  "  My  Recollections,"  New 
York,  1904,  p.  91,  says  that  Emperor  William  I.  made  the  same 
comment  to  her.    But  where  the  interests  of  a  Hohenzollern  were 
not  directly  involved  William  was  more  liberal.    Prince  Hohenlohe 
records  in  his  "Memoirs"  (vol.  ii,  p.  273)  a  private  conversation 
which  he  had  with  William  I.  on  November  29,  1880,  at  the  time  of 
Stocker's  anti-Semitic  crusade :     "  We  then  came  to  the  question 
of  the  Jews.    The  Kaiser  does  not  approve  of  the  action  of  Pfarrer 


76  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

On  the  other  hand,  Bluntschli,  the  distinguished  publicist, 
in  his  pamphlet  "  Eoumania  and  the  Legal  Status  of  the  Jews 
in  Eoumania/'  written  in  1879,  well  says : 

The  opinion  that  the  Jews  were  a  foreign  nation,  interpolated 
among  the  Christian  people,  was  certainly  held  in  the  early 

Stocker,  but  he  thinks  that  the  affair  will  come  to  nothing,  and 
considers  that  the  noise  is  of  use  in  making  the  Jews  more  modest." 
In  "  The  Jewish  Encyclopedia,"  s.  v.  Verein  zur  Abwehr  des  Anti- 
semitismus,  it  is  stated  that  William  I.,  and  also  Frederick  III., 
subsequently  denounced  Stocker.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that 
the  personal  leaning  of  the  Emperor  towards  his  kinsman,  Prince 
Charles,  notwithstanding  Bismarck's  prior,  reiterated  assurances 
to  Bleichroeder  in  November,  1878,  that  Roumania  would  not  be 
recognized  by  Germany  until  she  had  emancipated  her  Jews  fully 
(see  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  November  22,  1878),  and  two  additional 
circumstances  presently  to  be  noted,  were  somewhat  responsible 
for  the  course  of  the  Powers  in  accepting  assurances  from 
Roumania,  instead  of  accomplishments,  in  the  matter  of  Jewish 
emancipation.  Of  these  additional  factors,  one  was  the  course  of 
Austria  and  Italy  in  meantime  unconditionally  recognizing  Rou- 
mania for  personal  considerations  of  their  own,  without  awaiting 
the  result  of  the -negotiations  conducted  by  England,  France  and 
Germany,  making  recognition  conditioned  on  Jewish  emancipation, 
which  continued  until  February,  1880.  The  other  was  that  Ger- 
many desired  Roumania  to  purchase  some  Roumanian  railways, 
the  securities  of  which  were  held  by  Germans,  before  recognition 
was  accorded,  and  Roumania  now  deemed  it  good  policy  to  accede 
to  Germany's  wishes  in  this  respect,  so  as  to  make  her  more  amena- 
ble to  her  views  on  the  Jewish  question.  When  it  appeared  that 
Austria,  Italy  and  Germany  were  recognizing  Roumania  anyhow 
(and  of  course  Russia  was  not  interested  in  effecting  Jewish  eman- 
cipation), France  and  even  England  preferred  not  to  continue  the 
contest  alone  and  accepted  Roumania's  promises,  only  partially 
performed,  in  a  carefully  phrased  identical  note  (infra,  p.  126). 
See,  besides,  the  English  Blue  Book  and  the  French  Yellow  Books 
on  the  recognition  of  Roumania;  Waddington's  statement  in  the 
French  Chamber  of  Deputies  on  July  31,  1879;  Journal  Officiel  de  la 
Republique  Franc.aise,  supra;  Aus  dem  Leben  Konig  Karls;  "  For- 
eign Relations,  1880,"  p.  52,  and  a  very  recent  biased  and  unre- 
liable booklet,  entitled  Ces  ques  les  Juifs  roumains  doivent  a  la 
Prusse,  Paris,  1916. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  77 

middle  ages,  but  it  has  been  rejected  ever  since  the  formation  and 
consolidation  of  territorial  and  national  States.  Throughout 
Europe  the  native  Jews,  in  the  different  countries  and  States  in 
which  they  are  found,  are  included  amongst  the  other  subjects  as 
belonging  to  the  country,  and  as  constituents  of  those  States. 
Only  those  Jews  who  are  subject  to  foreign  States  are  considered 
strangers,  just  as  is  the  case  with  Christian  strangers.  The 
Roumanian  Jews  are  in  no  other  sense  distinguished  from  non- 
Roumanian  Jews  living  in  Roumania,  than  Roumanian  Christians 
are  to  be  distinguished  from  foreign  Christians  living  in  Rou- 
mania  By  international  law  they  are  distinguished  from 

aliens.92 

Lord  Salisbury's  remarks  on  July  24,  1879,  as  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  about  the  applicability  to  the  Jews 
of  Roumania  of  these  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  to  a 
delegation  led  by  Baron  Henry  de  Worms,  of  representatives  of 
British  Jews,  are  particularly  apt : 93 

I  do  not  think  that  Baron  de  Worms  has  in  the  least  degree 
exaggerated  the  evils  of  the  state  of  things  which  has  hitherto 
existed  in  Roumania.  These  evils  attracted  the  attention  of  the 
Powers  at  Berlin  and  they  adopted  the  somewhat  unusual,  if  not 
unprecedented  course  of  making  their  recognition  of  a  great  politi- 
cal change  dependent  upon  certain  modifications  of  the  internal 
laws  of  the  country.  It  was  a  great  homage  to  the  principles  which 
all  the  civilized  nations  of  Europe  now  recognize,  and  it  was  a 
very  solemn  international  act  from  ivhich  I  do  not  think  the  Pow- 
ers will  recede The  fact  that  she  [Roumania]  came  under 

the  guardianship  of  the  Powers  of  Europe  as  a  whole,  and  that  her 
practical  internal  independence  was  secured  to  her  by  a  diplomatic 
act  was,  as  Baron  de  Worms  says,  the  result  of  the  blood  which 
England  and  France  and  Italy  shed  in  the  Crimea. 

The  history  of  the  Roumanian  failure  to  carry  out  these 
conditions,  which  she  ostensibly  accepted,  and  of  her  constantly 

92  See,  accordingly,  L.  de  Bar,  Observations  concemant  la  preuve 
de  la  nationalite  et  I'expulsion  par  le  gouvernement  roumains 
d'Israclites  nes  et  domicilies  en  Roumanie,  in  Revue  du  droit 
international,   II,  vol.  ix,  pp.  711-716;     Stambler,  L'histoire  des 
Israelites  roumains  et  le  droit  d 'intervention,  Paris,  1913.     See 
also,  infra,  pp.  150-1. 

93  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  August  1,  1879. 


78  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

increased  anti-Jewish  measures,  is  too  far  removed  from  the 
scope  of  this  paper  for  fuller  consideration  here.94 

Bulgaria,  in  her  constitution  promulgated  April  16,  1879, 
unreservedly  inserted  clauses  establishing  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  regardless  of  race  or  creed. 

M.  Franco,  principal  of  the  Alliance  school  at  Shumla, 
Bulgaria,  well  says  in  the  article  on  Bulgaria  in  '"  The  Jewish 
Encyclopedia  " : 

They  [the  Jews]  are  electors,  are  eligible  to  office,  and  are  to  be 
represented  in  every  municipality  by  one  or  two  members.  They 
may  become  members  of  the  Sobranje  [Chamber  of  Deputies]. 
They  are  subject  to  military  service,  and  have  the  right  of  mili- 
tary promotion The  liberality  of  the  new  constitution  was 

at  once  received  with  enthusiasm  by  the  Jews.  Three  graduates 
of  the  military  school  at  Sofia  attained  the  rank  of  major. 

He  further  notes  that 

in  1877,  when  the  Turks  set  fire  to  the  city  of  Sofia,  it  was  the 

Jews  and  Jewesses,  according  to  Bianconi  (Carte  Commerciale  de 

94  See,  however,  Appendices  IV,  V,  and  VI,  infra,  pp.  108,  114, 
137  et  seq.;  "  The  Jewish  Encyclopedia,"  s.  v.  Roumania;  "  Sin- 
cerus,"  Les  Juifs  en  Roumanie,  London,  1901;  E.  Schwarzfeld, 
"The  Situation  of  the  Jews  in  Roumania  since  the  Treaty  of 
Berlin,"  in  The  American  Jewish  Year  Book  for  1901-1902; 
Stambler,  L'histoire  des  Israelites  roumains  et  le  droit  ^inter- 
vention; Rey,  La  question  israelite  en  Roumanie,  Paris,  1903; 
Lazare,  Die  Juden  in  Rumdnien;  Plotke,  Die  rumanischen  Juden 
unter  dem  Fiirsten  und  Ko'nig  Karl,  Frankfurt,  a.M.,  1901;  French 
Yellow  Book,  1879  and  1880  (Affaires  Etrangeres:  Documents 
diplomatiques :  Question  de  la  reconnaisance  de  la  Roumanie) ; 
"Great  Britain,  Parliamentary  Papers,  1880,"  vol.  79,  "Cor- 
respondence Relative  to  the  Recognition  of  Roumania,"  and  vol. 
81,  "  Correspondence  Respecting  the  Condition  of  the  Mussulman, 
Greek  and  Jewish  Populations  in  Eastern  Roumelia";  Edwards, 
"  Career  and  Correspondence  of  Sir  William  White,"  London, 
1902;  Israel  Davis,  "The  Jews  in  Roumania,"  London,  1872,  and 
D.  F.  Schloss,  "  The  Persecutions  of  the  Jews  in  Roumania," 
London,  1885;  "An  American  in  Roumania,"  in  "Memoirs  of 
David  Blaustein,"  New  York,  1913,  pp.  65-79;  F.  C.  Conybeare, 
"  Roumania  as  a  Persecuting  Power,"  in  National  Review,  1901, 
vol.  xxxvi,  p.  818. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  79 

la  Bulgarie,  p.  12,  published  by  Chaix,  Paris),  who  fought  the 
flame  and  armed  with  whatever  weapons  came  to  hand  beat  off 
the  soldiers  employed  in  setting  fire  to  the  buildings.  Thus  the 
Bulgarian  capital  owed  its  preservation  to  its  Jewish  inhabitants, 
and,  in  recognition  of  their  bravery,  Prince  Alexander  decreed 
in  1879  that  the  fire  brigade  should  be  chosen  exclusively  from 
Jewish  citizens,  and  on  all  occasions  of  reviews,  processions,  etc., 
the  Jewish  firemen  have  the  place  of  honor  next  to  the  picked 
troops  of  the  Bulgarian  army.  When,  in  1885,  Bulgaria  was  wag- 
ing war  against  Servia,  the  Bulgarian  Jews  distinguished  them- 
selves so  highly  in  the  battles  of  Pirot  and  Slivnitza  that  Prince 
Alexander  publicly  thanked  them,  calling  them  true  descendants 
of  the  ancient  Maccabees. 

Similar  views  were  expressed  more  recently  by  W.  S.  Monroe, 
in  his  work  "  Bulgaria  and  Her  People," 95  who  says : 

The  Moslems  and  the  Jews  in  Bulgaria  have  known  nothing  of 
the  bitter  race  antogonisms  that  their  compatriots  in  the  other 
Balkan  States  have  had  to  face.  Jews  and  Turks  are  not  only  rep- 
resented in  the  national  assembly,  but  they  occupy  posts  of  honor 
in  the  civil  service  of  the  country. 

As  Eastern  Eoumelia  was  annexed  to  Bulgaria  in  1885,  this 
description  is  applicable  to  the  Jews  who  resided  there  also, 
though  even  previously,  in  1879,  Eastern  Eoumelia  had  loyally 
complied  with  the  requirements  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  in  her 
constitution.  So  also  had  Montenegro. 

Although  Serbian  persecution  of  the  Jews  had  aroused  inter- 
national protests  even  before  Eoumanian  discriminations,  par- 
ticularly on  the  part  of  England  and  the  United  States,  Serbia 
also  fully  complied  with  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  and 
her  new  constitution  expressly  abolished  the  anti-Jewish  laws 
of  1856  and  1861.86 

90  Boston,  1914,  p.  189;  see,  also,  Segall,  Juden  in  Bulgarien,  in 
Zeitschrift  fur  Demographic  und  8tatistik  der  Juden,  vol.  vii,  1911, 
pp.  6-10,  17-21;  Chaunier,  La  Bulgarie,  Paris,  1909;  M.  Philippson, 
Neueste  Geschichte  des  jildischen  Volkes,  Leipzig,  1910,  vol.  ii,  pp. 
340-3,  356. 

98  M.  Franco  in  "The  Jewish  Encyclopedia,"  s.  v.  Servia;  supra, 
p.  74;  Philippson,  supra,  pp.  343-5,  356;  Razhichich,  Das  kirchlich- 
religidse  Leben  bei  den  Serben,  Gottingen,  1896;  Rachic,  Le 


80  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

IV. 

SECRETARY  HAY'S  ROUMANIAN  NOTE  OF  1902  AND  THE  PEACE 
CONFERENCE  OF  BUCHAREST  OF  1913. 

In  Secretary  John  Hay's  famous  Roumanian  Note  of  July 
17,  1902,  a  new  ground  for  American  intermediation  in  case  of 
religious  persecution  is  outlined,  in  addition  to  those  pre- 
viously presented.  This  arises  from  the  circumstance  that 
foreign  immigration  to  the  United  States  is  unduly  and 
vexatiously  artificially  stimulated,  when  religious  persecution 
forces  thousands,  suddenly  and  precipitately,  to  seek  refuge 
on  our  shores  under  our  sacred  American  principle  of  asylum 
for  the  persecuted.  The  heavy  increase  in  Roumanian  Jewish 
immigration,  just  prior  to  the  writing  of  Secretary  Hay's  note, 
was  ascribed  to  the  persecutions  resulting  from  a  disregard  of 
the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  above  referred  to.  Our 
protest  was  voiced 

not  alone  because  it  [our  Government]  has  unimpeachable  ground 
to  remonstrate  against  the  resultant  injury  to  itself,  but  in  the 
name  of  humanity.97 

Royaume  de  Serbie,  Paris,  1901;  Sloane's  "The  Balkans,"  New 
York,  1914;  Jiricek,  G-eschichte  der  Serben,  Gotha,  1911;  "The 
Balkan  Wars  and  the  Jews,"  in  American  Jewish  Year  Book  for 
1913-1914,  pp.  188-206;  ibid.,  for  1914-1915,  pp.  382-388;  Stead, 
"  Servia  and  the  Servians,"  London,  1909,  p.  156;  Kanitz,  Serbien 
und  das  Serbenvolk,  Leipzig,  1904-9,  vol.  ii,  p.  208;  "A  Diplomat- 
ist," "  Nationalism  and  the  War  in  the  Near  East,"  Oxford,  1915 
(Carnegie  Endowment  for  International  Peace). 

97  For  fuller  quotation  and  able  analysis  of  this  note  by  Con- 
gressman Chandler,  see  infra,  p.  133;  the  full  text  is  printed  in 
"  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States  for  1902,"  p.  1910;  Adler, 
in  Publications,  supra,  No.  15,  p.  54;  Wiernik,  "History  of  the 
Jews  in  America,"  New  York,  1912,  p.  447.  See  paper  on  the  Hay 
Note  and  its  significance,  by  W.  Maitland  Abell,  in  Gunton's  Maga- 
zine, vol.  xxiii,  pp.  476-87;  also,  addresses  by  Hons.  Oscar  S.  Straus, 
Elihu  Root  and  Andrew  D.  White,  and  by  Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  Kraus- 
kopf  at  the  "  Unveiling  and  Consecration  of  the  John  Hay  Memo- 
rial Window  at  the  Temple  of  the  Reform  Congregation  Keneseth 
Israel,  Philadelphia,"  December  2,  1906. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  81 

Copies  of  this  note  were  sent  to  our  representatives  in  France, 
Germany,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Eussia  and  Turkey,  to  call  to 
the  attention  of  the  governments  that  had  signed  the  Treaty  of 
Berlin. 

Mr.  Jacob  H.  Schiff,  shortly  before  this  Hay  Eoumanian 
note  was  written,  called  the  attention  of  President  Theodore 
Roosevelt  to  the  shocking  persecutions  which  caused  this  Rou- 
manian emigration,  and  immediately  found  him  to  be  a  most 
sympathetic  auditor,  eager  to  aid  in  alleviating  these  condi- 
tions, and  the  President  himself  immediately  afterwards 
joined  Mr.  Schiff  in  urging  Secretary  Hay  to  find  a  way  to 
aid  in  ameliorating  this  situation,  despite  possible  diplomatic 
difficulties.  The  result  has  been  an  important  and  conspicuous 
advance  in  international  endeavors  to  secure  liberty  of  con- 
science the  world  over.  Hons.  Lucius  1ST.  Littauer  and  Oscar  S. 
Straus  also  cooperated  in  securing  such  aid,  and  Hon.  Simon 
Wolf,  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Delegates  on  Civil  Rights  of 
the  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congregations,  both  before  and 
afterwards,  was  untiring  in  acquainting  Secretary  Hay  with 
the  urgency  of  governmental  action  on  our  part.  Mr.  Oscar  S. 
Straus  prepared  two  memoranda  on  this  subject  for  President 
Roosevelt,  the  first  of  which  was  presented  to  the  President  by 
Mr.  Schiff  in  his  original  interview  with  him,  and  both  are 
hereto  annexed  as  Appendix  IV.98  After  the  Hay  Roumanian 
note  was  published,  Mr.  Straus  wrote  letters  of  appreciation  to 
President  Roosevelt  and  Secretary  Hay,  and  in  the  course  of 
his  letter  to  President  Roosevelt,  said,  under  date  of  October  1, 
1902 : 

Secretary  Hay  has  formulated  with  a  logic  and  force  as  has  never 
been  done  before,  the  ethical  principle  that  where  wrongs  extend 
beyond  national  boundaries,  so  also  does  the  right  for  their  redress, 

which  is  a  most  cogent  and  convincing  statement  for  inter- 
national action  in  such  cases  as  this.  In  the  course  of  his 

™  See  infra,  pp.  108-114. 

7 


82  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

answer  to  Mr.  Straus,  Secretary  Hay  wrote,  under  date  of 
October  4,  1902 : 

I  agree  with  you  in  hoping  that  some  good  may  result  from 
what  we  have  done,  even  if  for  the  moment  Roumania  seems  obdu- 
rate, and  some  of  the  great  Powers  indifferent,  to  the  moral  ques- 
tion involved. 

The  President  acknowledged  Mr.  Straus'  letter  through  Secre- 
tary George  B.  Cortelyou,  under  date  of  October  2,  1902,  in  a 
letter  which  established  President  Roosevelt's  personal  activity 
in  the  matter  of  the  dispatch  of  this  Roumanian  note,  stating 
with  respect  to  Mr.  Straus'  appreciation : 

It  gives  him  [the  President]  great  pleasure,  as  the  Roumanian 
note  was  prepared  under  his  personal  supervision.98 

The  conditions,  economic  and  political,  leading  to  Rou- 
manian Jewish  immigration  to  the  United  States,  are  admir- 
ably treated,  both  historically  and  in  a  descriptive  manner  in 
Samuel  Joseph's  "  Jewish  Immigration  to  the  United  States 
from  1881  to  1910,100  as  also  the  fortunes  of  these  immi- 
grants in  the  United  States,  showing  that,  under  new  condi- 
tions and  laws,  and  with  the  idea  of  a  wholesale  exodus  elimi- 
nated, we  are  now  able  satisfactorily  to  assimilate  Roumanian 
Jews  here  in  much  larger  numbers  than  in  Peixotto's  day. 
When  we  remember  that  Roumania  has  in  our  own  day  pro- 
duced such  distinguished  Jewish  sons  as  the  late  Solomon 
Schechter,  of  New  York,  the  Haham,  Dr.  Moses  Gaster,  of 
London,  the  late  Elie  Schwarzfeld,  of  Paris,  Dr.  C.  Lippe,  Dr. 
M.  Beck  and  Adolf  Stern,  we  can  see  how  unjust  and  unwar- 
ranted are  the  attempted  distinctions,  drawn  by  Roumanian 
officials  and  reechoed  by  Gortschakoff  at  the  Congress  of  Berlin, 

"Compare  an  appeal  by  the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle  to 
the  French  Government  on  behalf  of  the  Roumanian  Jews,  soon 
after  the  Hay  note  was  despatched,  translated  in  The  American 
Hebrew,  November  14,  1902.  Efforts  were  made  in  a  number  of 
other  European  countries  to  cooperate  with  Secretary  Hay's  plans. 
See  Publications,  supra,  No.  15,  pp.  61-73,  and  American  Jewish 
Year  Book  for  1903-1904,  pp.  17-18. 

100  Columbia  University  Studies,  New  York,  1914. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  83 

between  the  Jews  of  Roumania  and  those  of  London,  Paris, 
Berlin  and  New  York. 

Since  Secretary  Hay's  Roumanian  note  was  written,  an 
excellent,  forcible,  and  humane  plea  for  American  intermedia- 
tion with  Eoumania  was  delivered  before  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives on  October  10,  1913,  by  Congressman  Walter  M. 
Chandler  of  New  York,  entitled  "  The  Jews  of  Roumania,  and 
the  Treaty  of  Berlin,"3'1  the  Roumanian  Jewish  section  of 
which  is  reprinted  as  Appendix  V  (pp.  114-137),  and  "hear- 
ings "  before  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  on  "  The  Jews  of  Roumania "  were  also 
held  December  10,  19  and  22,  1912,  and  issued  in  pamphlet 
form,  including  arguments  by  Congressmen  Chandler,  Henry 
M.  Goldfogle  and  William  S.  Bennet.  Congressman  J.  Hamp- 
ton Moore  and  Senators  Moses  E.  Clapp  and  Miles  Poindexter 
have  also  interested  themselves  in  the  subject  by  means  of 
public  addresses. 

At  the  close  of  the  Balkan  Wars  of  1912-1913  the  United 
States  Government  intervened  on  behalf  of  the  Jews  of  that 
section,  urging  that  the  treaty  of  peace  should  make  specific 
provisions,  guaranteeing  full  civil  and  religious  rights  to  the 
Jews  whose  allegiance  was  about  to  be  transferred,  by  reason 
of  cessions  resulting  from  the  wars.  Important  correspond- 
ence loa  took  place  in  this  connection  in  1913  between  Mr.  Louis 

101  Congressional  Record,  vol.  50,  p.  5541;  infra,  p.  115.    See  also, 
U.  S.  Senate  Document  No.  611,  63d  Congress,  2d  Session,  "  Jewish 
Immigrants — Report  of  a  Special  Committee  of  the  National  Jew- 
ish Immigration  Council,  appointed  to  examine  into  the  question 
of  illiteracy  among  Jewish  immigrants  and  its  causes,"  showing 
the  practical  working  of  Russian  and  Roumanian  laws  and  regu- 
lations and  their  administration  in  discriminating  against  Jews  of 
these  lands  in  the  matter  of  educational  opportunities.     Cony- 
beare's  excellent  study  of  Roumanian  Jewish  disabilities,  in  the 
National  Review,  supra,  contains  valuable  material  on  Roumania's 
attempts  to  deny  educational  opportunities  to  her  Jewish  "  step- 
children."    See  infra,  pp.  130-1,  146-7,  149. 

102  C/.  American  Jewish  Year  Book  for  1913-1914,  pp.  240-241; 
iUd.,  for  1914-1915,  pp.  382-388. 


84  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Marshall,  Dr.  Cyrus  Adler  and  Dr.  Herbert  Friedenwald,  rep- 
resenting the  American  Jewish  Committee,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  Presidents  William  H.  Taft  and  Woodrow  Wilson  and  the 
Hon.  John  Bassett  Moore,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  on  the 
other,  reading  as  follows : 

I. 

New  York,  January  14,  1913. 
DEAR  MB.  PRESIDENT: 

On  behalf  of  the  American  Jewish  Committee,  of  which  I  have 
the  honor  to  be  president,  I  venture  to  urge  that  the  American 
Embassy  at  London  may  be  instructed  to  bring  to  the  attention 
of  the  delegates  now  assembled  in  London  to  arrange  terms  of 
peace  between  the  Allied  States  and  the  Ottoman  Empire,  to  the 
British  Foreign  Office  and  to  the  Ambassadors  in  London,  the 
satisfaction  with  which  the  United  States  would  regard  the  in- 
sertion in  any  such  treaty  of  peace  of  a  clause  which  will  effect- 
ively secure  to  all  people  of  every  race  and  religion  whatsoever, 
now  domiciled  in  the  conquered  territory,  ample  protection  for 
their  lives,  their  liberty  and  their  property,  equality  of  citizen- 
ship and  the  right  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of 
'their  conscience. 

There  are  now  in  the  Ottoman  Empire  approximately  a  half 
million  Jewish  subjects,  probably  more  than  half  of  whom  live  in 
European  Turkey.  Of  this  number  a  considerable  proportion 
resides  in  the  territory  now  occupied  by  the  Greek,  Bulgarian, 
Servian  and  Montenegrin  armies.  There  is,  therefore,  a  reason- 
able presumption  that  the  occupied  area  will,  to  a  large  extent, 
pass  from  Turkish  rule  to  that  of  the  conquering  Powers.  Im- 
portant consequences  from  the  change  in  sovereignty  are  inevit- 
able. Thus  in  Salonica,  to  which  Greece  lays  claim,  of  a  total 
population  of  120,000  there  are  75,000  Jews,  who  have  hitherto 
been  measurably  free  from  harsh  discrimination.  A  great  pro- 
portion of  the  Jews  of  that  part  of  the  Ottoman  Empire  to  be 
affected  by  the  impending  treaty  are  the  descendants  of  the  Jews 
who  were  exiled  from  Spain  in  1492.  They  have  resided  in  Turkey 
for  more  than  four  hundred  years  and  constitute  an  integral  part 
of  her  population. 

There  are  two  grounds  upon  which,  it  seems  to  me,  the  United 
States  is  justified  in  making  known  its  view  to  the  participants 
in  the  negotiations  now  in  progress,  and  to  the  representatives 
of  the  Powers  in  London: 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  85 

(1)  The  Orthodox  Greek  Church  is  practically  the  established 
Church  of  the  allied  states  to  whom  this  part  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire  is  to  be  ceded.  For  the  last  thirty  years  that  Church  as 
now  constituted  in  Russia  and  the  Balkan  States  has  been 
notoriously  hostile  to  the  Jews.  The  facts  are  so  well  known  and 
the  results  so  patent  in  our  own  population  that  it  is  unnecessary 
to  dwell  upon  this  painful  fact.  If  the  Jews  of  Turkey  who  have 
hitherto  lived  there  under  favorable  conditions  should  be  op- 
pressed, persecuted  or  harried  by  the  new  sovereignty  by  reason 
of  their  faith,  a  new  influx  of  immigrants  to  the  United  States 
will  be  inevitable.  While  in  no  manner  unfriendly  to  such  immi- 
gration it  is  nevertheless  evident  that  it  should  not  be  forced 
upon  the  United  States,  as  it  unquestionably  would,  if  no  action 
is  taken  at  the  London  Conference  which  would  preclude  the  possi- 
bility of  discrimination  against  the  Turkish  Jews  by  the  suc- 
cessors in  sovereignty  to  the  Ottoman  Empire.  Though  the 
United  States  is  not  a  party  to  the  Conference  and  is  supposed  to 
have  no  standing  in  the  proceeding  now  in  progress,  I  venture  to 
remind  you  in  this  connection  of  a  passage  employed  by  President 
Harrison  in  his  message  to  Congress  of  December  9,  1891,  which 
reads  as  follows: 

"  The  banishment,  whether  by  direct  decree  or  by  not  less  cer- 
tain indirect  methods,  of  so  large  a  number  of  men  and  women 
is  not  a  local  question.  A  decree  to  leave  one  country  is,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  an  order  to  enter  another — some  other.  This 
consideration  as  well  as  the  suggestions  of  humanity,  furnish 
ample  ground  for  the  remonstrances  which  we  have  presented 
to  Russia." 

The  peace  conference  in  London  is  similar  to  the  Congress  held 
in  Berlin  to  consider  the  terms  upon  which  the  consequences  of 
the  Russo-Turkish  War  were  arranged.  When  that  Congress  was 
in  contemplation,  our  Minister  to  Vienna,  Mr.  Kasson,  under  date 
of  June  5,  1878,  called  attention  to  the  attitude  of  the  Roumanian 
Government  to  the  Jews,  and  urged  that  our  Government  interest 
itself  in  securing  for  them  equal  rights  and  freedom  from  perse- 
cution. The  Foreign  Relations  of  1878,  1879  and  1880  contain  a 
number  of  dispatches  indicating  that  our  Government  in  fact  in- 
terested itself  to  this  end.  Unhappily  the  conditions  which  were 
imposed  by  Article  XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  to  guarantee 
the  equality  of  the  Jews,  were  not  fulfilled  by  Roumania,  with  the 
result  that  thousands  of  Roumanian  Jews  were  compelled  to  emi- 
grate to  this  country.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  United  States 


86  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

was  not  a  party  to  the  treaty,  Secretary  Hay  in  1902  addressed  the 
Powers  who  were  signatories  to  the  Berlin  treaty,  urging  fulfil- 
ment of  that  clause  of  the  treaty  which  was  designed  to  protect 
the  Jews  of  Roumania,  and  giving  abundant  reason  for  such 
action  by  our  Government. 

(2)  Though  these  facts  have  been  adverted  to  as  affording 
technical  warrant  for  the  action  requested  by  the  American  Jew- 
ish Committee,  I  believe  that  independently  of  the  considerations 
thus  far  discussed,  the  exercise  of  the  good  offices  of  our  Govern- 
ment with  the  Conferees  and  the  Powers  is  in  keeping  with  the 
policy  which  the  United  States  has  for  more  than  seventy  years 
pursued,  of  acting  in  the  name  and  at  the  behest  of  humanity, 
whether  American  interests  are  involved  or  not. 

Believing  that  at  the  present  juncture  both  humanitarian  and 
American  interests  are  involved,  I  am  confident  that  this  plea 
will  not  have  been  made  in  vain. 

Permit  me  also  to  suggest  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  death 
of  our  late  Ambassador  at  the  Court  of  St.  James  has  created  a 
vacancy  in  the  American  Embassy  at  London,  present  conditions 
might  justify  a  designation  by  you  of  one  or  more  special  com- 
missioners, who  are  familiar  with  the  problems  arising  in  the 
Balkan  States  and  the  Ottoman  Empire,  to  make  the  necessary 
representations  to  the  Conferees  and  to  the  Ambassadors  of  the 
Powers  at  London,  by  means  of  which  the  desired  relief  in  this 
exigency  may  possibly  be  attained. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

Louis  MARSHALL, 

President  American  Jewish  Committee. 
The  President,103 
White  House, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

II. 

Washington,  D.  C.,  March  28,  1913. 
THE  PRESIDENT:  104 

Supplementing  our  interview  of  this  morning  on  behalf  of  the 
American  Jewish  Committee  and  the  statements  contained  in  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Louis  Marshall,  president  of  that  committee,  to 
President  Taft,  a  copy  of  which  was  left  with  you,  we  beg,  in 

103  Mr.  Taft. 
1M  Mr.  Wilson. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  87 

accordance  with  your  request  for  additional  information,  to  sub- 
mit the  following: 

The  Jews  in  European  Turkey  have,  under  the  Ottoman  rule, 
been  allowed  the  free  exercise  of  their  religion  and  have  been 
secure  in  their  civil  rights.  Their  Chief  Rabbi  has  been  on  a 
plane  of  equality  with  the  heads  of  other  religious  denominations. 
They  represent  in  the  main  an  old  stratum  of  the  population, 
partly  from  remote  antiquity  and  partly  the  people  who  sought 
refuge  from  Turkey  when  they  were  exiled  from  Spain  in  1492. 
A  quarter  of  a  million  or  more  of  Jews  will  in  all  likelihood  be 
incorporated  into  the  Balkan  States  which  will  result  from  the 
present  unhappy  war.  In  a  single  town,  Salonika,  between 
seventy  and  eighty  thousand  of  a  population  of  one  hundred  and 
forty  thousand  inhabitants  are  Jews  who  represent  a  very  high 
state  of  civilization.  The  prevailing  church  of  the  Balkan  States 
is  the  Greek  Catholic  Church,  which,  to  our  profound  regret,  we 
are  obliged  to  say  has  been  and  is  notoriously  hostile  to  the  Jews. 
The  churches  permit  the  promulgation  of  the  wicked  slander  of 
the  use  of  Christian  blood  for  ritual  purposes,  which  inflames  the 
minds  of  the  populace,  and  hardly  a  year  passes  but  there  are 
attacks  upon  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  the  Greek  Easter.  Immedi- 
ately upon  the  capture  of  Salonika  by  the  Greeks,  the  Jews  were 
singled  out,  a  number  murdered,  their  houses  and  shops  pillaged 
and  their  women  outraged  and  maltreated. 

We  would  cite  also  Roumania,  which  is  understood  to  desire  to 
secure  a  portion  of  the  territory  now  belonging  to  Bulgaria  in  and 
about  Silistria  in  compensation  for  additional  territory  which 
Bulgaria  may  secure.  The  attitude  of  Roumania  towards  its 
Jewish  population  has  always  been  extremely  hostile  and  in  such 
flagrant  defiance  of  the  very  constitution  of  that  state,  that 
although  the  United  States  was  not  a  signatory  to  the  conference 
which  established  Roumania,  Secretary  Hay,  in  1902,  was  moved  to 
address  an  identical  note  to  our  ambassadors  and  ministers  re- 
siding in  the  countries  of  Europe,  instructing  them  to  present  the 
views  of  our  Government  to  the  signatory  powers  upon  this  point. 
If  Roumania,  for  example,  is  to  secure  more  territory,  the  interests 
of  humanity  entitle  every  nation  to  take  whatever  steps  can  be 
taken,  to  see  that  Roumania  gives  rights  to  the  Jews,  who  have 
been  on  the  soil  longer  than  the  present  Roumanians  themselves, 
but  are  nevertheless  treated  as  aliens  and  outcasts.  The  Bul- 
garian Jews  residing  in  the  nearest  Roumanian  territory  have 
appealed  to  their  government  and  have  declared  that  the  transfer 


88  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

suggested  would  be  tantamount  to  a  deprivation  of  their  political 
freedom  and  equality  and  to  their  moral  degradation.  Signer 
Luzzatti,  at  one  time  Prime  Minister  of  Italy,  has  publicly  en- 
dorsed this  statement. 

In  view  of  these  dreadful  possibilities  we  earnestly  petition  the 
President  to  lend  the  powerful  aid  of  the  United  States,  to  the 
end  that  before  the  conclusion  of  the  treaties  of  peace  which  will 
result  in  the  increase  of  the  territory  of  the  existing  Balkan  States 
and  in  the  possible  formation  of  new  states,  guarantees  shall  be 
obtained  that  all  the  inhabitants  shall  be  secure  in  their  lives  and 
property,  shall  have  equal  rights  and  be  permitted  to  worship  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  their  conscience. 

Our  suggested  means  for  carrying  out  these  proposals,  about 
the  propriety  of  which  we  feel  there  can  be  no  disagreement,  is  the 
appointment  of  a  special  commissioner  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  to  proceed  to  London  or  to  whatever  other  point  the  con- 
ference of  the  powers  will  be  held,  to  settle  upon  terms  of  peace 
in  the  Balkan  States,  with  authority  to  present  the  views  of  this 
Government  to  the  representatives  of  the  Balkan  States  and  of 
the  powers  participating  in  the  conference. 

For  the  interposition  of  such  friendly  offices  of  the  United  States 
there  is  ample  precedent,  and  we  here  only  refer  to  the  action  of 
the  United  States  on  behalf  of  the  Jews  at  Damascus  in  1840,  at 
Morocco  in  1880  and  at  the  Algeciras  Conference  in  1906. 

We  venture  to  urge  a  speedy  consideration  of  the  matter,  be- 
cause the  war  seems  to  have  drawn  to  a  close  and  the  conference 
which  will  inevitably  ensue  is  not  likely  to  be  long  delayed.  We 
ask  for  the  appointment  of  an  experienced  person  to  be  on  the  spot, 
which  is  especially  urgent  in  view  of  the  change  in  ambassador- 
ships now  taking  place  and  the  likelihood  that  for  several  months, 
and  during  the  period  of  this  conference,  a  number  of  our  im- 
portant posts  may  be  without  ambassadors.  We  believe  that  it 
would  be  dangerous  to  delay  action  until  such  time  as  the  ques- 
tion of  the  frontier  and  other  important  political  matters  which 
will  be  brought  up  in  the  conference  are  settled,  because  new 
states  will  be  formed  or  existing  states  will  acquire  additional 
territory  upon  the  terms  laid  down  by  the  European  Conference. 
We  have  more  reason  to  hope  for  better  treatment  of  minority 
populations  at  a  time  when  the  Balkan  States  can  secure  some 
advantage  for  the  majority  populations  than  on  any  other 
occasion. 

We  most  respectfully  urge  your  favorable  and  speedy  action 
upon  this  petition.  We  believe  that  the  United  States  would  have 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  89 

a  stronger  moral  influence  in  this  action  than  any  other  power. 
The  appointment  of  a  commissioner  would  show  the  profound 
interest  of  the  government  and  the  people  of  the  United  States 
in  this  righteous  cause,  and  no  suspicion  of  any  desire  of  terri- 
torial or  other  aggrandizement  would  lie  against  the  United  States. 
In  partial  support  of  this  communication  we  submit  such  docu- 
ments as  we  have  at  hand: 

(1)  A  memorandum  of  the  important  instances  in  which  the 
United  States  has  interposed  its  good  offices  on  behalf  of  the  Jews. 

(2)  A  memorandum  prepared  by  the  Jews  of  England  and  sub- 
mitted to  Sir  Edward  Grey  on  the  treaty  rights  of  the  Jews  of 
Roumania. 

(3)  A  copy  of  a  memorial  presented  by  the  Roumanian  Jews  to 
their  parliament. 

(4)  The  correspondence  with  respect  to  the  part  taken  by  the 
United  States  on  behalf  of  the  Jews  at  the  Algeciras  Conference. 

(5)  Volume  15  of  the  Publications  of  the  American  Jewish  His- 
torical Society,  published  in  1906,  which  contains  extracts  of  the 
diplomatic  correspondence  of  the  United  States  relating  to  the 
Jews,  and  which  is  but  a  small  fraction  of  a  much  larger  corre- 
spondence which  could  be  furnished. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be, 

Your  most  obedient  servants, 
CYRUS  ADLJEB, 
HERBERT  FRIEDENWALD. 

III. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  July  2-'h  1913. 
MR.  CYRUS  ADLER. 

SIR:  Referring  to  your  recent  call  on  the  Secretary  of  State  in 
the  course  of  which  you  left  with  him  copies  of  the  American  Jew- 
ish Committee's  letters  to  President  Taft,  under  the  date  of  Janu- 
ary 14th,  and  to  President  Wilson,  under  date  of  March  28th  last,  I 
have  to  inform  you  that  the  Department  has  given  careful  con- 
sideration to  the  question  of  the  status  and  rights  of  such  of  your 
coreligionists  as  may  be  transferred  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Ottoman  Empire  to  that  of  any  of  the  several  Balkan  States.  The 
Department  has  now  found  it  possible  to  instruct  the  American 
Ambassador  in  London,  that,  understanding  that  the  questions 
involved  in  the  settlement  of  affairs  in  the  Balkan  Peninsula 
continue  to  be  considered  by  the  Conference  of  Ambassadors  of 


90  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

the  European  Powers  in  London,  under  the  Chairmanship  of  the 
British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  it  desires  the 
Ambassador  to  take  occasion  to  express  to  the  British  Foreign 
Office  the  satisfaction  with  which  the  United  States  would  regard 
the  inclusion,  in  any  such  agreement  as  may  ultimately  be  con- 
cluded in  regard  to  these  questions,  of  a  provision  assuring  the 
full  enjoyment  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  territories  in  question,  without  distinction  of  creed. 
I  am,  Sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

J.  B.  MOORE, 
Acting  Secretary  of  State. 

IV. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  July  30,  1913. 
CYRUS  ADLER,  ESQUIRE. 

SIR:  Referring  to  the  recent  letter  in  which  you  were  advised 
of  the  action  taken  by  the  Department  in  instructing  the  Ameri- 
can Ambassador  at  London  to  make  known  to  the  British  Secre- 
tary of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  as  Chairman  of  the  Ambassa- 
dorial Conference  in  London,  the  satisfaction  with  which  this 
Government  would  regard  an  assurance  of  full  civil  and  religious 
liberty  to  the  inhabitants  of  former  Turkish  territories  which  may 
pass  under  the  jurisdiction  of  any  of  the  several  Balkan  States, 
I  have  to  inform  you  that  there  has  now  been  received  from  the 
Ambassador  a  telegram  reporting  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  the 
Conference  of  Ambassadors  to  deal  only  with  such  questions  as 
the  delimitation  of  certain  boundaries,  and  the  determination  of 
the  mutual  relationships  of  the  interested  European  Powers  with 
reference  to  the  questions  incidental  to  the  Balkan  War;  that 
the  Conference  is  not  expected  to  deal  with  the  domestic  questions 
of  the  several  Balkan  States;  but  that  the  British  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs  has  expressed  his  willingness  to  lay 
before  the  Conference,  in  the  event  that  it  should  undertake  the 
consideration  of  the  question,  the  views  made  known  to  him  by  the 
Ambassador  in  behalf  of  this  Government. 
I  am,  Sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

for  the  Secretary  of  State, 

J.  B.  MOORE, 

Counselor. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  91 

V. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  August  6,  1913. 
CYRUS  ADLER,  ESQUIRE. 

SIR:  Adverting  to  the  letter  of  July  24th  in  which  you  were 
advised  of  the  action  taken  by  this  Department  in  instructing  the 
American  Ambassador  at  London  to  make  known  to  the  British 
Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  as  Chairman  of  the  Am- 
bassadorial Conference  in  London,  the  satisfaction  with  which 
this  Government  would  regard  an  assurance  of  full  civil  and 
religious  liberty  to  the  inhabitants  of  former  Turkish  territories 
which  may  pass  under  the  jurisdiction  of  any  of  the  several 
Balkan  States,  I  have  to  advise  you  that  the  American  Ministers 
accredited  to  Greece  and  Montenegro,  and  to  Bulgaria,  Roumania 
and  Servia,  have  subsequently  been  instructed  to  make  to  those 
Governments  a  communication  similar  to  that  which  had  been 
made  to  the  British  Foreign  Secretary  by  the  American  Embassy 
in  London. 

I  am,  Sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

for  the  Secretary  of  State, 

J.  B.  MOORE, 

Counselor. 

VI. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  August  9,  1913. 
CYRUS  ADLER,  ESQUIRE. 

SIR:  In  further  reference  to  the  Department's  letter  of  July  24th 
advising  you  of  its  action  in  instructing  the  American  Ambassa- 
dor at  London  to  make  known  to  the  British  Secretary  of  State 
for  Foreign  Affairs,  as  the  Chairman  of  the  Ambassadorial  Con- 
ference in  London,  the  satisfaction  with  which  this  Government 
would  regard  an  assurance  of  full  civil  and  religious  liberty  to 
the  inhabitants  of  former  Turkish  territories  which  may  pass 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  any  of  the  several  Balkan  States,  I  have 
to  inform  you  that  there  has  now  been  received  from  the  Ameri- 
can Minister  at  Bucharest  (to  whom  the  action  thus  taken 
was  communicated  by  telegraph)  a  despatch  reporting  that  it  is 
to  be  anticipated  that  the  Jewish  inhabitants  of  the  territory 
about  to  be  transferred  from  Bulgarian  to  Roumanian  sovereignty 
will  be  accorded  the  same  rights  and  privileges  as  are  given  to 


92  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

persons  of  other  races  and  religions,  as  was  the  case  when  the 
Dobrudja  was  acquired  in  1878.  This  dispatch  further  reports 
that  Jews  in  Bulgaria  and  Servia  enjoy  the  full  rights  and 
privileges  of  citizenship  and  are  not  discriminated  against  in  any 
way;  and  that  under  the  circumstances  it  is  not  probable  that 
any  discrimination  will  be  made  with  regard  to  newly  acquired 
territory. 

Referring  to  the  Department's  letter  of  the  6th  instant  advising 
you  that  the  American  Ministers  accredited  to  the  several  nations 
in  the  Balkan  Peninsula  had  been  instructed  to  make  communica- 
tion similar  to  that  which  had  been  made  to  the  British  Foreign 
Office  by  the  American  Embassy  in  London,  I  have  now  to  inform 
you  that  the  views  of  this  Government  were  at  once  communicated 
to  the  delegates  of  the  five  States  participating  in  the  Peace 
Conference  at  Bucharest.  At  this  conference,  the  Bulgarian  Gov- 
ernment is  represented  by  its  Minister  of  Finance,  with  full 
powers,  and  Greece,  Montenegro,  Roumania  and  Servia  are  repre- 
sented by  their  Prime  Ministers  who,  in  the  case  of  the  latter  two 
countries,  are  also  Ministers  for  Foreign  Affairs.  The  American 
Minister  at  Bucharest  now  reports  that  on  the  5th  instant  the 
views  presented  in  behalf  of  this  Government  were  taken  up  by 
the  Conference,  which  unanimously  decided  that  it  would  be 
superfluous  to  include  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace  a  special  provision 
of  the  nature  contemplated,  inasmuch  as  the  Constitutions  of  all 
the  States  involved  guarantee  civil  and  religious  liberty  and  the 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  Roumania  took  occasion  to  declare 
the  view  that  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  international 
law  all  citizens  of  annexed  territory  without  distinction  of  race 
or  religion,  become  citizens  of  the  annexing  State. 
I  am,  Sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

for  the  Secretary  of  State, 

J.  B.  MOORE, 

Counselor. 

The  official  protocol  of  the  Bucharest  Conference  fully  bears 
out  the  advices  of  our  State  Department  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
guarantees  given  at  this  Peace  Conference.  On  August  5, 
1913,  the  question  was  raised  at  the  Peace  Conference  by  a 
communication  from  the  United  States  Government,  express- 
ing the  hope  that  a  provision  would  be  introduced  into  the 
treaty, 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  93 

according  full  civil  and  religious  liberty  to  the  inhabitants  of  any 
territory  subject  to  the  sovereignty  of  any  of  the  five  Powers,  or 
which  might  be  transferred  from  the  jurisdiction  of  any  one  of 
them  to  that  of  another. 

M.   Majoresco,  the  chief  Koumanian  plenipotentiary,  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  such  .a  provision  was  unnecessary 
as  the  principle  inspiring  it  had  long  been  recognized,  in  fact  and 
in  law,  by  the  public  law  of  the  Constitutional  States  represented 
at  the  Conference, 

but  he  added  that  he  was  willing  to  declare,  on  behalf  of  the 
plenipotentiaries,  that 

the  inhabitants  of  any  territory  newly  acquired  will  have,  with- 
out distinction  of  religion,  the  same  full  civil  and  religious  liberty 
as  all  the  other  inhabitants  of  the  state. 

In  this  view  the  other  plenipotentiaries  concurred.105 

On  October  13,  1913,  the  London  Board  of  Deputies  of 
British  Jews  and  the  Anglo-Jewish  Association,  addressed  a 
Joint  Memorial  to  Sir  Edward  Grey 106  urging  that  affirmative 
guarantees  be  secured,107  and  pointing  out  that  Eoumania  had 
repeatedly  ignored  and  repudiated  similar  assurances,  as  in  fact 
she  has  done  since  then,  also,  in  this  particular  instance.  This 
memorial  expressly  conceded,  however,  that 
in  four  of  the  annexing  States,  namely,  Greece,  Bulgaria,  Servia 
and  Montenegro,  the  Constitutions  provide  for  the  equal  rights 
of  all  religious  denominations,  and  they  gratefully  acknowledge 
that  for  may  years  past,  the  Jews  in  those  countries  have  had  no 
reason  to  complain. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  directed  this  memorial  to  be  answered  by 
an  important  letter,  reading : 108 

The  articles  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  to  which  you  refer,  are  in 
no  way  abrogated  by  the  territorial  changes  in  the  Near  East, 
and  remain  as  binding  as  they  have  been  hitherto,  as  regards  all 

103  Protocol  No.  6. 

106  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  October  31,  1913,  prints  the  full  text. 

107  Cf.  their  earlier  Memorial  of  1908,  printed  as  Appendix  VI, 
infra,  pp.  137-153. 

108  The  Jewish  Chronicle,  November  7,  1913. 


94  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

territories  covered  by  these  articles  at  the  time  when  the  treaty 
was  signed.  Her  Majesty's  Government  will,  however,  consult 
with  the  other  Powers  as  to  the  policy  of  reaffirming  in  some  way 
the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  for  the  protection  of  the 
religious  and  other  liberties  of  the  minorities  in  the  territories 
referred  to,  when  the  question  of  giving  formal  recognition  by 
the  Powers  to  the  recent  territorial  changes  in  the  Balkan  penin- 
sula is  raised. 

Such  guarantees  have  not,  however,  thus  far  been  secured, 
and  will  become  all  the  more  necessary,  in  view  of  probable 
territorial  changes  at  the  close  of  the  present  war. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  in  a  work  just  published  on 
"  The  Doctrine  of  Intervention  "  by  H.  C.  Hodges,109  probably 
the  first  on  the  subject  written  in  the  United  States,  the  author 
makes  a  strong  plea  for  such  American  intervention  on 
behalf  of  persecuted  foreign  Jews,  though  without  specific 
reference  to  our  American  precedents  of  intercession  on  behalf 
of  the  victims  of  religious  persecution,  which  Charles  Sumner 
in  1870,  as  seen,  described  in  the  Senate,  with  reference  to 
Roumanian  Jewish  persecution,  as  "the  guardianship  of 
humanity,  which  belongs  to  the  great  Republic,"  and  which 
Secretary  Forsyth  in  1840,  in  connection  with  the  Damascus 
blood  accusations,  had  emphasized  as  following  from  our 
mission  as  the  pioneer  exponent  of  religious  liberty,  which 
distinctive  characteristic  of  our  Government  invests  with  a 
peculiar  propriety  and  right  the  interposition  of  our  good  offices 
in  behalf  of  an  oppressed  and  persecuted  race. 

As  seen,  Secretary  Hay  and  Acting  Secretary  Moore,  in 
1902  and  1913,  followed  the  same  precedents.  Mr.  Hodges 
says : 

109  Princeton,  1915.  See  similar  views  in  Oscar  S.  Straus'  address, 
"  The  Humanitarian  Diplomacy  of  the  United  States,"  in  his 
"The  American  Spirit,"  New  York,  1913,  p.  19  et  seq.;  and  see 
Stambler,  supra;  Wheaton,  "  Elements  of  International  Law,"  5th 
English  edition  (Phillipson),  London,  1916,  pp.  90-130,  regarding 
the  right  of  intervention  and  interference;  T.  J.  Lawrence,  "The 
Primacy  of  the  Great  Powers,"  in  his  "  Essays  on  Some  Disputed 
Questions  in  Modern  International  Law,"  Cambridge,  1884. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  95 

The  case  of  an  intervention  in  the  interest  of  persecuted  Jews 
presents  several  distinct  peculiarities.  In  the  first  place,  the  race 
has  no  direct  protecting  governmental  authority.  In  the  second 
place,  due  to  their  scattered  condition,  they  are  unable  to  unite 
in  sufficient  numbers  for  their  own  adequate  protection.  These 
two  facts  are  sufficient  to  explain  the  peculiarity  of  the  present 
situation  of  the  Jews  in  Roumania. 

At  the  Berlin  Conference  in  1878,  the  Powers  agreed  to  recog- 
nize the  Balkan  States  on  the  condition  that  they  should  not  im- 
pose any  religious  disabilities  on  their  subjects.  This  was  the 
spirit  and  letter  of  Article  44  of  that  Agreement.  Recognition 
was  granted  with  the  understanding  that  this  stipulation  would 
be  fulfilled.  Hence  it  follows  from  the  spirit  of  Article  44  that 
should  this  article  be  violated,  the  Powers  signing  that  agreement 
had  the  right,  and  even  more  the  duty,  of  intervention.  Never- 
theless, in  accordance  with  the  municipal  law  in  Roumania,  the 
Jews  are,  with  a  few  exceptions,  considered  as  foreigners,  so  that 
they  may  not  come  under  the  provisions  of  the  article  just  men- 
tioned. On  the  other  hand,  the  authorities  argue  that  since  these 
Jews  are  not  subjects  of  any  other  state,  Roumania  may  compel 
them  to  render  military  service.  The  authorities  treat  them,  in 
respect  to  many  other  matters,  as  their  discretion  may  direct. 
It  would  seem  that  the  parties  to  this  Berlin  Conference  are  lax 
in  the  fulfilment  of  their  obligations  so  long  as  they  allow  such 
actions  to  continue.  For  them  intervention  for  the  correction  of 
the  present  anomalous  condition  of  the  Roumanian  Jew,  is  legally 
justifiable.  For  other  states  the  cause  is  very  weak.  It  must  be 
admitted  that  the  so-called  rights  of  mankind  are  not  absolutely 
assured. 

If  Oppenheim's  history  of  the  development  of  the  mutual 
ascendancy  of  the  Christian  religion  and  the  principles  of  inter- 
national law  uo  is  a  true  one,  it  is  hard  to  see  upon  what  grounds  an 

110  Mr.  Hodges,  on  p.  94  of  his  work,  quotes  the  following  passage 
from  Oppenheim's  "  International  Law  "  (2d  edition,  London,  1912, 
vol.  i,  p.  368) : 

"  The  Law  of  Nations  is  a  product  of  Christian  civilization  and 
represents  a  legal  order  which  binds  states,  chiefly  Christian,  into 
a  community.  It  is  therefore  no  wonder  that  ethical  ideas  which 
are  some  of  them  the  basis  of,  others  a  development  from,  Christian 
morals,  have  a  tendency  to  require  the  help  of  international  law 
for  their  realization.  When  the  Powers  stipulated  at  the  Berlin 


96  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

intervention  for  the  suppression  of  such  conditions  as  exist  in 
Roumania  in  respect  to  the  Jewish  population  can  be  denied. 

The  development  of  the  "  hands  off  "  policy  is  nullifying  sym- 
pathy in  a  similar  case,  where  no  agreement  exists  to  justify  an 
intervention.  The  case  of  the  Jews  in  Russia  is  known  to  the 
civilized  world.  The  reports  cannot  all  be  false.  The  condition 
of  these  people  arouses  pity,  but,  although  deplorable  conditions 
exist  there,  they  are  not  existing  in  violation  of  any  international 
agreement.  The  Jews  in  Roumania  have  a  much  stronger  case 
than  the  Jews  in  Russia,  but  the  only  legitimate  authority  for 
taking  up  their  cause  from  a  strictly  legal  standpoint  has  failed 
to  act. 

One  of  the  strongest  views  in  opposition  to  an  intervention 
based  on  religious  oppression  is  expressed  by  Hall,  from  whose 
writings  Oppenheim  says  many  of  his  opinions  are  formed. 
Evidently  this  opinion  came  from  a  different  source.  There  are 

Conference  of  1878  that  the  Balkan  States  should  be  recognized 
only  under  the  condition  that  they  did  not  impose  any  religious 
disabilities  on  their  subjects,  they  lent  their  arm  to  the  realization 
of  such  an  idea.  Again,  when  the  Powers  after  the  beginning  of 
the  nineteenth  century  agreed  to  several  international  arrange- 
ments in  the  interest  of  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade,  they 
fostered  the  realization  of  another  of  these  ideas." 

On  the  same  page,  he  also  quotes  Phillimore  as  follows: 
"  Phillimore  in  his  work  on  International  Law  states  that  one  of 
the  just  causes  of  intervention  is  '  to  protect  persons,  subjects  of 
another  state,  from  persecution  on  account  of  professing  another 
religion  not  recognized  by  that  state,  but  identical  with  the  relig- 
ion of  the  intervening  state.'  (I,  p.  468.)" 

In  his  interesting  historical  discussion  of  intervention,  Mr. 
Hodges  points  out  (p.  8),  that  the  religious  principle  was  one  of 
the  earliest  causes  of  intervention,  the  best  example  of  this  being 
the  Crusades  and  the  wars  instituted  "  in  the  effort  to  keep  open  the 
road,  that  their  countrymen  might  make  pilgrimages  to  the 
shrines  of  the  Holy  Land,"  and  he  also  mentions,  as  another  early 
justification,  intervention  based  on  the  theory  of  "  barbarity," 
which  was  invoked  as  an  added  incentive  and  justification  for  the 
Crusades  on  account  of  Turkish  cruelties,  and  which  ground  found 
a  recent  application  in  England's  course  in  Egypt,  culminating  in 
her  annexation  of  that  country  in  1914  (p.  9).  These  causes  were 
also  marked  as  grounds  for  intervention  in  the  religious  wars  of 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  97 

several  writers  who  maintain  that  the  Law  of  Nations  guarantees 
to  every  individual,  wherever  he  might  be,  the  so-called  rights  of 
mankind,  no  matter  what  may  be  his  status;  that  is,  even  though 
he  may  be  stateless.  Among  these  writers  are  Bluntschli,  de 
Martens,  Bonfils  and  others.111 

We  may  conclude  that,  although  the  opinions  of  the  writers  just 
mentioned  can  hardly  be  said  to  obtain  at  the  present  time,  never- 
theless there  is  a  tendency  to  depart  from  that  very  strict  con- 
struction given  to  the  principle  by  Hall.  As  in  the  case  of  hu- 
manity it  seems  that  the  tendency  of  an  ever  increasing  pressure 
of  public  opinion,  combined  with  a  more  universal  demand  for 
justice,  is  to  push  the  claim  for  legality  of  this  cause  ever  nearer 
that  point  where  it  will  be  recognized  by  the  majority.  Religious 
toleration  will  be  one  of  the  accomplishments  of  an  advanced 
international  community  just  as  surely  as  it  is  of  the  more  en- 
lightened states  of  the  present  time. 

the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  (p.  10).  He  also  recog- 
nizes protection  of  missionaries  as  an  established  ground  for  inter- 
vention (pp.  74-80),  as  also  "the  cause  of  humanity"  (pp.  87-92), 
examples  of  which  were  intervention  by  the  great  Powers  of  Europe 
in  1827  on  behalf  of  Greek  independence,  and  again  in  1860  to  put 
a  stop  to  the  massacre  of  Christians  in  the  district  of  Mount 
Lebanon,  which  Lawrence  has  justified.  See,  also,  Hodges'  study 
of  American  precedents  (pp.  13-16,  36-37,  39-40,  61-79,  101-102,  118- 
146,  etc.).  Of  course,  self-protection  justifies  intervention  (pp.  6-7, 
23-28, 104-105,  215),  and  where  treaties  or  conventions  affirmatively 
grant  the  right,  or  intervention  is  called  for  to  enforce  such  treaties 
or  guarantees,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Balkan  States,  an  additional 
ground  for  intervention  exists  according  to  his  classification  (p. 
36),  he,  in  this  case,  citing  Hershey's  "  Essentials  of  International 
Public  Law"  (ibid.)  to  this  effect;  and  Oppenheim  (supra,  vol.  i, 
p.  190)  writes  to  the  same  effect  and  gives  a  particularly  lucid 
treatment  of  the  whole  subject  of  intervention,  with  numerous 
citations  (iUd,  pp.  118-119,  188-189). 

111  See  quotations  in  Stambler,  supra,  pp.  200-203;  Oppenheim, 
"  International  Law,"  2d  edition,  London,  1912,  vol.  i,  p.  188. 


98  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 


APPENDIX  I. 

PETITION  OF  THE  ROUMANIAN  JEWS  TO  THE  CHAMBER  OF  DEPUTIES; 

1872. 

Mr.  President,  Gentlemen,  Deputies  of  the  Chamber  of  Roumania: 

In  true  fealty  to  the  land  of  our  birth,  we,  the  undersigned  Rou- 
manians of  Mosaic  faith,  descendants  of  those  who  shared  in  the 
days  of  national  reverses  all  burdens  and  sufferings  alike  with 
our  countrymen  of  other  faiths,  approach  to  ask  in  most  respectful 
but  earnest  terms  the  extension  of  those  rights  which  have  so  long 
been  withheld  from  us. 

Driven  from  other  lands  where  intolerance  and  persecution 
had  made  their  lives  bitter  and  hopeless,  the  children  of  Israel 
found  in  Roumania  refuge  and  asylum.  Cultivating  the  arts  of 
peace,  industry  and  commerce,  they  lived  in  harmony  with  their 
Christian  brethren,  and  contributed  to  the  wealth  and  progress 
of  the  nation.  Only  with  the  introduction  of  those  notions  of 
political  economy  which  have  sought  to  raise  false  distinctions 
between  one  class  of  the  population  and  the  other,  have  we  come 
to  be  overwhelmed  with  the  monstrous  charges  of  long  buried 
ages,  and  to  be  considered  and  treated  as  pariahs  in  our  father- 
land. We  deem  it  superfluous  to  refute  these  charges.  To  con- 
tend that  because  of  our  religious  differences  we  cherish  other 
than  patriotic  feeling,  would  be  to  refute  the  whole  history  of  the 
past  and  the  action  of  the  most  advanced  nations  of  the  present. 

Almost  every  civilized  government  of  the  present  day  has 
admitted  the  Hebrew  to  complete  civil  and  political  liberty.  Rou- 
mania, too,  regenerating  herself,  has  been  led  by  these  priciples  in 
stipulating,  in  an  accord  with  the  guaranteeing  Powers,  by  Article 
46  of  the  Convention  of  Paris,  July  19,  1858,  that  all  Moldavians 
and  Wallachians  should  be  equal  before  the  law,  irrespective  of 
religion,  making  this  distinction  with  reference  to  political  rights 
whose  extension  was  left  to  the  Legislative  Chamber,  because  all 
Europe  supposed  that  the  liberal  Roumanians  would  accomplish 
of  their  own  volition  this  act  of  justice,  confirming  thereby  their 
just  title  to  be  admitted  into  the  family  of  the  most  enlightened 
nations. 

We  are  pained  to  see  that,  after  waiting  more  than  fourteen 
years  since  the  promulgation  of  the  Convention  of  Paris,  not  only 
have  we  not  been  admitted  to  those  rights,  but  even  those  rights 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  99 

which  we  formerly  enjoyed  under  old  laws  have  been  taken  from 
us  by  an  erroneous  interpretation  of  the  new  organic  law. 

We  ask  you,  gentlemen  deputies,  to  consider  our  position  in 
the  present  moment.  We  are  denied  almost  every  right  which 
man  cherishes  as  dear  as  life  itself.  We  have  no  political  rights, 
no  civil  liberty.  We  cannot  hold  property  in  or  till  the  soil.  We 
cannot  purchase  even  the  dwellings  sheltering  our  families.  We 
are  shut  out  from  the  learned  professions,  excluded  from  several 
industrial  and  commercial  pursuits,  and  in  the  army  where 
several  thousand  soldiers  of  Jewish  faith  serve  in  the  ranks,  all 
hope  of  promotion  is  denied.  Nor  is  this  all;  the  public  mind  of 
the  country  is  continually  excited  against  us  by  misrepresentations 
and  invectives,  while  general  and  systematic  persecution  has  its 
apologists. 

We  must  respectfully  submit  that  all  this  has  been  contrary  to 
the  spirit  of  past  and  existing  treaties  and  opposed  to  the  spirit 
and  letter  of  the  Constitution.  Article  21  of  that  instrument  de- 
clares liberty  of  conscience  to  be  unrestricted  and  guarantees  the 
freedom  of  all  religions.  There  is  then  no  distinction  between 
Roumanians  born  in  Christian  or  Jewish  faith.  Nor  in  the  sup- 
port to  be  rendered  to  the  country  is  any  discrimination  made, 
both  being  subject  to  the  same  taxes  and  required  to  fulfill  the 
same  obligations.  Both  should  therefore  be  equal  before  the  law, 
and  it  should  not  be  for  a  moment  insisted  that  of  those  born  in 
the  country  only  one  part  should  enjoy  all  rights  and  prerogatives, 
while  the  other  part  should  have  only  duties,  no  rights. 

In  the  only  clause  referring  to  religious  distinction  in  the  Con- 
stitution, it  is  said,  Article  8:  "Only  strangers  of  Christian 
religion  can  acquire  naturalization."  This  clause  cannot  be 
applied  to  us,  we  are  no  strangers.  Here  our  fathers  made  their 
homes  in  the  early  days  of  history.  More  than  five  centuries 
have  passed  since  our  ancestors  first  came  to  this  land. 

Can  we,  who  have  here  buried  our  fathers,  be  destitute  of  love  for 
the  country  which  holds  within  the  bosom  of  her  soil  their  sacred 
ashes?  Should  we  not  be  pained  to  the  depths  of  our  souls,  we, 
who  are  bound  to  this  country  by  thousands  of  ties,  to  see  our 
birthright  given  to  foreigners,  while  we,  children  of  the  soil,  are 
treated  as  strangers,  and  oftentimes  forced  to  seek  foreign  pro- 
tection? 

The  youth  of  the  Mosaic  faith,  educated  on  the  benches  of  the 
national  schools,  together  with  the  Christian  youth,  can  they  be 
less  accessible  to  the  sentiments  of  patriotism,  the  spirit  of  Rou- 


100  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

manianism?  We  most  solemnly  declare  in  spite  of  all  our  suffer- 
ings that  we  love  Roumania,  the  land  of  our  birth,  we  recognize 
no  other  country,  we  have  no  other  home! 

We  come  then,  gentlemen  deputies,  to  pray  that  by  virtue  of  the 
high  authority  with  which  the  sacred  obligations  of  international 
treaties  have  invested  you,  you  declare  our  rights  as  Roumanians. 
We  address  ourselves  to  you,  venerable  deputies,  you  who,  by 
living  traditions  and  long  experience,  have  been  in  a  position  to 
convince  yourselves  that  your  brethren  of  the  Jewish  faith  now, 
as  of  old,  are  peaceable,  loyal  and  industrious,  contributing  to  the 
national  wealth,  without  ever  thinking  or  profiting  by  agitations 
and  disturbances. 

Convince  your  colleagues  that  all  the  arguments  brought  for- 
ward against  us  are  slanders  drawn  from  the  dark  ages,  unworthy 
of  modern  thought,  inconsistent  with  the  teachings  of  history  and 
logic,  and  opposed  to  the  broad  principles  upon  which  rests  our 
national  edifice.  Persuade  them  to  be  in  our  favor.  We  address 
ourselves  to  you,  young  deputies,  who  have  been  brought  up  in 
the  most  civilized  countries  of  Europe,  who  have  been  nourished 
at  the  springs  of  the  most  enlightened  universities,  and  who  have 
had  frequent  occasion  to  witness  that  in  those  countries,  where  the 
Israelite  is  equal  with  his  Christian  brother,  there  exists  no 
jealousy,  no  religious  hatred.  There  the  Hebrew  does  not  remain 
behind  his  companion  of  other  faiths,  either  in  the  sciences,  the 
arts,  or  patriotism.  Tell  this  to  your  colleagues,  that  they  shall 
follow  the  example  of  those  prosperous,  enlightened  states,  and 
revive  the  ancient  spirit  of  generosity  which  once  fired  the  soul 
of  every  Roumanian.  With  you  rest  the  proudest  hopes  which 
the  age  builds  for  the  future.  We  shall  not  plead  with  you  in  vain. 

We  address  ourselves  to  you,  gentlemen  professors,  deputies  in 
the  Chamber.  You,  who  have  the  noble  and  beautiful  mission  of 
familiarizing  youth  with  the  history  of  the  fatherland.  Tell  them 
and  tell  the  world  that  the  Jews  are  no  strangers  in  Roumania. 
Their  presence  in  this  country  dates  back  to  the  remotest  periods 
of  history.  That  they  came  into  Dacia  with  the  Roumanians,  that 
Decebalus  received  them  and  gave  them  homes  in  the  valley  which 
they  then  called  Talmus,  and  which  to  this  day  is  called  Talmaci. 
That  under  the  reign  of  Dan  II,  in  1376,  the  Hebrews,  driven  out 
from  Hungary  by  King  Ludwig,  found  refuge  in  Roumania.  Tell 
them  that  the  Jews  had  to  suffer  equally  with  the  Christians  from 
the  cruelties  of  Stefan  III,  and  others  who  demolished  their 
synagogues.  Explain  to  them  that  if  the  Jews  engage  principally 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  101 

in  commerce,  this  cannot  be  imputed  as  a  failing,  but  rather  as 
an  honor;  for  idleness  begets  sin,  and  labor  alone  dignifies.  Tell 
them,  too,  that  because  of  long  centuries  of  oppression,  which 
forbade  us  to  follow  the  pursuits  of  our  patriarchal  fathers,  we 
have  been  compelled  to  adopt  commercial  and  mechanical  pur- 
suits, in  which  alone  we  were  permitted  to  gain  a  livelihood.  Tell 
them  that  a  people,  who  in  every  age  have  preserved  their  faith 
in  the  one  Living  God,  who  have  survived  the  fall  of  empires,  the 
crash  of  thrones,  and  whose  matchless  code  of  laws  forms  the  basis 
upon  which  all  other  religious  systems  are  founded,  may  well 
claim  to  be  considered  a  part  of  the  body  politic  of  any  nation. 

We  address  ourselves  finally  to  all  the  Deputies  of  the  Chambers, 
of  whatsoever  shade.  We  believe  that  the  time  has  come  when 
every  son  of  the  soil,  every  native-born  son  of  the  country  should 
be  declared,  without  distinction  of  religion,  a  Roumanian.  We 
believe  that  the  time  has  come  of  which  M.  Cogalniceanu  spoke 
in  his  discourse  delivered  in  the  Divan-ad-hos,  on  the  15th  of 
November,  1857.  "  I  believe,"  said  he,  "  that  soon  the  time  will 
come  when  religion  will  be  no  title  of  exclusion  for  any  citizen; 
the  time  will  come  when  all  will  be  Roumanians  in  beloved  Rou- 
mania.  For  we  must  be  just  to  all  the  sons  of  Roumania,  because 
only  by  justice  can  we  secure  tranquility  in  the  country,  and  only 
by  the  ties  of  mutual  love  can  we  unite  all  the  powers  of  our 
nation,  in  order  to  have  a  beautiful  and  true  Roumanian  father- 
land." 

Gentlemen  Deputies,  when  all  civilized  nations  of  modern  times 
have  established  the  civil  and  political  rights  of  the  Hebrew,  shall 
only  the  Roumanian  Jew  be  kept  in  bondage?  Shall  Roumania 
alone  among  the  nations  make  so  unjust  an  exception?  No;  our 
country,  young  in  its  new  institutions,  needs  the  hands  of  all  her 
sons  to  develop  her  resources.  Our  cause  not  only  involves  prin- 
ciples of  justice  and  humanity,  but  the  internal  peace  and  future 
welfare  of  the  nation. 

Gentlemen  Deputies:  We  rely  upon  your  sense  of  justice  and 
confide  our  cause  in  your  keeping,  confident  that  you  will  meet  this 
our  petition  in  that  broad  spirit  which  is  characteristic  of  the  age, 
and  upon  which  all  permanent  progress  is  founded.  We  look 
alone  to  you  and  our  fatherland,  we  ask  no  other  help.  With 
prayers  for  the  health  of  our  august  Sovereign,  invoking  the  wis- 
dom of  Almighty  God  upon  your  labors, 

We  are  Your  Humble  Petitioners,  &c. 


102  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

APPENDIX  II. 

MEMOKIAL  submitted  to  the  Conference  of  the  European  Powers 
at  Constantinople  by  the  Conference  of  Israelites  held  at  Paris 
(1876). 

Paris,  December,  1876. 
To  the  President  and  Members  of  the  Conference  at  Constantinople: 

GENTLEMEN:  You  are  called  upon  to  deliberate  upon  the  inter- 
ests of  a  numerous  population  in  the  East,  and  to  achieve  a  work 
of  peace  and  justice. 

In  coming  before  you  to-day,  we  do  not  appeal  to  your  liberality 
in  behalf  of  ourselves.  The  privileges  which  we  solicit  from  your 
powerful  authority  we  already  enjoy  in  the  different  countries 
of  our  birth,  and  among  the  populations  of  which  we  constitute  a 
portion.  We  are  sent  to  you  by  the  Israelites  of  Germany, 
America,  England,  Austria,  Belgium,  Prance,  Holland,  Italy  and 
Switzerland. 

Bound  together  by  the  same  religious  belief,  we  solicit  through 
you  the  accomplishment  of  the  work  of  humanity  with  which  you 
are  charged,  and  which  seems  full  of  important  results. 

You  are  assembled  to  regulate  the  civil  and  political  condition 
of  various  Eastern  nations.  We,  as  Israelites,  citizens  of  free 
nations,  ask  you  not  to  make  any  distinction  between  the  different 
religions,  and  to  guarantee  to  our  coreligionists  the  same  rights 
as  are  enjoyed  by  other  inhabitants  of  those  countries. 

A  bitter  experience  in  the  Danubian  Principalities  has  demon- 
strated the  danger  of  unequal  civil  rights  between  the  different 
populations  of  the  same  country,  and  the  same  fact  was  made 
obvious  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris  in  1856,  and  the  Convention  of 
Paris  in  1858.  Every  privilege  denied  to  a  race  or  religion  gives 
rise  to  persecutions,  such  as  those  which  Roumania  and  Servia 
have  for  many  years  presented  to  Europe,  and  which  we  trust  are 
drawing  nigh  to  a  close. 

It  cannot,  therefore,  be  the  intention  of  any  of  the  great  nations 
participating  in  the  Conference  at  Constantinople  to  secure  any 
rights  for  Christians  from  which  the  Ottoman  subjects  of  other 
creeds  would  be  debarred. 

From  time  immemorial,  Turkey  has  treated  her  non-Mussul- 
man subjects  without  any  distinction.  In  the  present  country, 
the  Israelites  have  been  included  in  all  laws  for  the  organization 
of  the  Empire,  and  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  rayas,  such 
as  the  hatti-sherif  of  Gulhave,  of  the  13th  of  November,  1839,  and 
the  hatti-humayun  of  1856. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  103 

The  civil  law  of  Turkey  establishes  equality  between  all  persons, 
without  any  distinction  of  race  or  creed.  These  legislative  pre- 
cedents hold  out  to  the  Israelites,  as  well  as  to  all  non-Mussulman 
subjects,  an  equal  share  in  the  improvements  and  reform  which 
may  be  brought  about  in  the  administration  and  political  Govern- 
ment of  Turkey. 

In  the  Principalities,  on  the  contrary,  the  condition  of  the 
Israelites,  instead  of  being  improved,  has  never  ceased  to  grow 
worse  since  those  provinces  have  been  governing  themselves. 
Servia  banishes  them  from  their  homes,  and  forbids  them  to  settle 
in  every  portion  of  her  territory,  except  Belgrade,  and  by  a  strange 
irony  it  leaves  their  political  rights  intact,  while  it  refuses  them 
their  civil  rights.  Who  is  there  that  does  not  know  of  the  shock- 
ing persecutions  which  they  have  endured  in  Roumania?  They 
are  in  the  memories  of  all  men,  and  have,  on  several  occasions, 
deeply  stirred  the  emotion  of  Europe. 

The  Convention  of  Paris  in  its  46th  Article,  had  secured  all 
civil  rights  to  Israelites,  by  extending  them  to  all  Moldo-Walla- 
chians  who  were  non-Christian,  and  thus  left  to  the  liberality  of 
the  section  the  concession  of  political  rights. 

The  Moldo-Wallachian  Christians'  and  non-Christians'  rights 
were  soon  enlarged  by  the  laws  of  the  country. 

In  order  to  prevent  the  Jews  from  enjoying  the  advantages 
accorded  to  them  by  their  possession  of  civil  rights,  they  denied 
that  the  Israelites,  in  spite  of  their  birthplace,  had  been  Moldo- 
Wallachians.  Afterwards,  to  keep  them  from  becoming  such,  the 
Constitution  of  1866  reserved  to  foreign  Christians  only  the  right 
of  being  naturalized. 

Deprived  by  these  expedients  of  the  protection  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  1858,  the  Israelites  were  simultaneously  delivered  over 
to  the  despotism  of  the  law-makers  of  the  country,  and  the  fury 
of  the  populace.  Every  one  knows  the  long  list  of  crimes,  riots, 
and  banishments  which,  from  1863  to  1872,  roused  the  indigna- 
tion of  every  civilized  people,  the  destruction  of  the  synagogue  at 
Bucharest  in  1566,  the  wholesale  expulsion  in  1867,  the  drowning 
of  Galatz,  the  renewed  banishments  from  the  districts  of  Bajan 
and  Vaslui  in  1868,  followed  by  the  protests  of  all  the  consuls,  the 
banishment  on  a  great  scale  from  the  districts  of  Bajan,  Galatz 
and  Vaslui  in  1869,  the  riots  of  Tecuh  and  Battosehan  in  1870,  the 
riot  at  Ismael,  Cahul  and  Vilcow  in  1872,  the  acquittal  of  the 
rioters  by  the  jury  and  renewed  threats  of  expulsion  at  Dorshoi, 
Tolschan,  and  other  places  this  very  year. 


104  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

When  the  consuls  interfered  to  put  a  stop  to  these  atrocities,  the 
most  wicked  schemes  were  broached  in  the  Legislature  of  Rou- 
mania,  with  the  idea  of  expelling  the  Jews  from  the  rural  dis- 
tricts, and  at  the  same  time  of  making  their  living  in  the  cities 
an  impossible  matter. 

To  stave  off  the  protests  of  European  representatives,  they 
henceforward  desisted  from  mentioning  the  Israelites  by  name  in 
laws  legislating  against  strangers,  and  the  Jews,  treated  as  such 
notwithstanding  their  long  residence  in  the  country,  notwithstand- 
ing the  old  laws  of  Moldavia-Wallachia  and  the  international 
treaties,  which  recognize  them  as  native-born,  and,  finally,  in  spite 
of  their  attachment  to  their  home,  have  lost,  during  the  last  few 
years,  by  a  series  of  laws  more  murderous  than  the  violence  of  the 
riots,  the  right  to  settle  in  the  rural  districts,  and  to  purchase  even 
or  lease  country  property,  to  own  real  estate  in  the  cities,  to  attend 
auction  sales,  to  manufacture  and  sell  tobacco,  to  retail  liquors  in 
the  country  districts.  The  freedom  of  going  and  coming,  of  engag- 
ing in  trade,  the  right  of  holding  property,  being  taken  away  from 
them,  are  they  not  already  outlaws? 

But  every  public  charge  or  obligation  is,  nevertheless,  imposed 
on  them;  even  military  duty,  which,  by  a  refinement  of  cruelty, 
they  perform  not  as  Roumanians,  a  capacity  on  which  they 
might  base  their  claim  to  the  rights  of  non-Christian  Moldo-Walla- 
chians;  they  perform  this  last  duty  as  strangers  born  or  residing 
in  Roumania,  and  are  shut  out  from  promotion  from  the  lowest 
grade. 

The  Roumanians  go  even  further.  They  wish  to  exclude  Israel- 
ites of  all  countries.  In  their  treaties  of  commerce  with  other 
nations,  they  ask  that  the  Israelites  of  the  country  which  enters 
into  the  treaty  with  them,  be  subject  to  the  same  laws  which 
govern  their  coreligionists  in  Roumania.  As  early  as  1868, 
Lord  Stanley,  now  Earl  of  Derby,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of 
Great  Britain,  expressed  himself  in  the  following  language  in  the 
House  of  Commons:  "  I  really  think  it  is  a  question  which  con- 
cerns Christians  even  more  than  Jews,  because  if  the  suffering 
falls  upon  the  Jew,  the  disgrace  falls  upon  the  Christian.  I  know 
of  no  instance  in  our  time  of  a  series  of  oppressive  acts  which 
were  committed  so  completely — I  will  not  say  merely  without 
any  provocation,  but  so  far  as  I  can  see,  without  any  reasonable 
and  intelligible  motive  whatever."  (Hansard's  Debates,  supra, 
vol.  191,  p.  1267.) 

Can  this  very  deplorable  state  of  things  be  tolerated  in  Europe, 
in  a  country  which  owes  its  existence  to  Europe  itself?  The  lead- 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  105 

ing  Powers  have  never  ceased  to  complain  of  them.  Their  pro- 
tests have  too  frequently  remained  without  effect.  Assembled  for 
the  first  time  since  the  Treaty  of  1858,  they  now  have  a  splendid 
opportunity  to  make  known  their  will  to  cause  Roumania  and 
Servia  to  respect  the  Treaty,  for  the  performance  of  which  all  the 
inhabitants  of  those  nations  are  bound,  and  to  give  to  Israelites 
the  rights  of  which  they  are  deprived.  Europe  cannot  be  silent; 
while  it  demands,  in  a  unanimous  voice,  the  social  and  political 
equality  of  the  Christians  of  the  East,  will  it  suffer,  in  Roumania, 
a  population  of  250,000  souls  to  be  the  victims  of  an  unheard-of 
persecution? 

By  protecting  the  Jews  in  Roumania,  as  well  as  non-Mussul- 
mans in  Turkey,  it  will  proclaim  that  it  upholds  everywhere 
religious  liberty,  which  towers  above  all  faiths  and  religions. 

The  Israelitish  delegates,  representing  the  different  countries 
mentioned  in  this  Memorial,  have  therefore  the  honor  to  respect- 
fully submit  to  the  Conference  the  two  following  requests: 

1st.  To  grant  complete  civil,  religious  and  political  equality  to 
all  non-Mussulmans  in  the  provinces  of  Turkey,  the  condition  of 
which  is  now  under  the  consideration  of  the  Conference,  and  in  the 
principality  of  Servia. 

2nd.  To  revise  and  complete  the  Paris  Convention  of  1858,  in 
all  matters  concerning  the  Jews  of  Roumania,  in  order  that  they 
may  have  the  full  enjoyment  of  civil  and  political  rights. 

Accept,  gentlemen,  the  assurance  of  our  profound  respects, 
etc.,  etc. 

APPENDIX  III. 

MEMORIAL  OF  ALLIANCE  ISRAELITE  UNIVERSELLE  OF  PARIS  TO 
THE  CONGRESS  OF  BERLIN.112 

To  the  President  and  Members  of  the  European  Congress: 

Sixteen  months  ago,  Israelitish  delegates  from  all  countries 
addressed  the  European  Conference  at  Constantinople  and  asked 
it  to  put  an  end  to  the  oppressive  rule  to  which  the  Jews  in  Rou- 
mania and  Servia  are  subjected,  and  to  secure  to  those  provinces 
of  Turkey,  whose  fate  was  to  be  regulated  by  the  Conference,  the 
civil  and  political  equality  claimed  for  all  non-Mussulmans.  You 
meet  to-day  in  order  to  resume  the  work  of  the  Conference  of 
Constantinople.  Representatives  of  the  Great  Powers  of  Europe, 
you  are  called  upon  to  establish  in  Eastern  Europe  a  government 
under  which  populations  of  different  races  and  beliefs  may  live 
peacefully  with  each  other.  Europe  would  not  approve  of  a  peace 

™The  Jewish  Chronicle,  June  28,  1878. 


106  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

which  was  not  based  upon  respect  for  the  great  principles  of  pub- 
lic right;  the  equality  of  men  among  themselves,  freedom  of 
religious  belief.  The  necessity  of  writing  in  the  constitutions  of 
Oriental  countries,  that  religious  belief  cannot  be  for  anyone  a 
cause  of  social  or  political  inferiority,  is  imposed  by  the  law  of 
civilization.  It  is  still  more  so  by  the  necessity  for  suppressing 
the  danger  of  permanent  conflicts  between  populations  of  different 
races  and  religions. 

The  Treaties  of  1856  and  1858  ended  by  enacting  the  application 
of  these  principles  in  Roumania  and  in  Servia;  but  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  the  stipulations  of  these  Treaties  was  the  cause  of  break- 
ing the  spirit  of  them  and  rendering  possible  a  series  of  restrictive 
laws  against  the  Jews  of  these  two  countries.  In  Servia  they  were 
successively  hunted  from  the  country  and  the  villages,  excluded 
from  every  employment  and  from  every  function,  and  reduced  to 
misery.  The  deprivation  of  their  most  precious  rights  did  not 
free  them  from  any  burdens,  however.  They  were  subjected,  like 
all  Servians,  to  the  blood  tax;  like  them,  they  were  bound  to  mili- 
tary service. 

In  the  last  war  they  thought  to  conquer  the  ill-feeling  of  the 
country  towards  them  by  dint  of  patriotism.  They  fought  bravely 
and  mingled  on  the  fields  of  battle  their  blood  with  that  of  their 
compatriots.  If  their  sacrifices  brought  them  some  kind  words 
from  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  at  the  great  Skupschtina  in  1877, 
their  condition  did  not  at  all  change.  It  was  in  vain  that  at  the 
time  of  the  Convention  concluded  between  Servia  and  Turkey  in 
1877,  Turkey  claimed  for  them  the  rights  stubbornly  refused. 
Under  such  rule  their  number  has  long  since  diminished  to  half. 
They  are  constantly  in  certain  villages  threatened  with  edicts  of 
expulsion. 

In  Roumania  the  condition  of  the  Jews,  who  are  there  more 
numerous,  is  still  more  frightful.  For  two  years  they  have  been 
subject  to  the  most  cruel  persecutions.  Almost  every  year  Europe 
is  moved  by  the  recital  of  the  riots,  murders,  pillage  or  expulsions 
en  masse,  of  which  they  are  the  victims.  To  these  acts  of  violence 
legal  persecution  has  been  added  by  a  set  of  laws  excluding  the 
Jews  from  all  employments,  from  all  liberal  careers,  from  every 
public  function,  and  from  numerous  branches  of  commerce,  fetter- 
ing them  even  in  the  free  exercise  of  religious  practices,  and  seek- 
ing by  every  possible  means  to  reduce  them  to  misery,  and  to  dis- 
parage them.  In  vain  the  Guaranteeing  Powers,  supported  by 
Article  46  of  the  Convention  of  Paris,  which  granted  to  the  Rou- 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  107 

manian  Jews  at  least  civil  rights,  remonstrated  against  this  fatal 
and  barbarous  policy.  No  heed  was  given  either  to  their  advice,  or 
their  remonstrance.  Roumania,  without  pity  for  the  -Jews,  has, 
however,  in  them  subjects  devoted  to  work  useful  to  the  develop- 
ment of  commerce  and  of  industry,  capable  of  raising  themselves 
and  of  doing  honor  to  their  country  in  liberal  careers.  In  the  last 
war  the  services  which  they  rendered  with  the  ambulances  and  in 
the  hospitals,  and  their  conduct  on  the  battle-field,  have  brought 
them  public  marks  of  recognition  from  their  Prince;  but  neverthe- 
less, a  thing  unheard  of,  some  laws,  and  more  recently  a  decree  of  a 
court  of  justice  declared  that  these  Jews  who  shed  their  blood  for 
the  glory  of  their  country  did  not  belong  to  any  nationality  or  to 
any  country. 

If  such  is  the  conduct  of  Servia  and  Roumania  with  regard  to 
the  Jews,  what  have  they  not  to  fear  from  other  emancipated 
provinces  of  Turkey?  Is  it  necessary  to  recall  the  sad  episode  of 
Eska-Zagra  and  Kezanlik,  in  order  to  show  the  dangers  which 
menace  the  Jews  in  Bulgaria  and  part  of  Roumania?  Thousands  of 
them  still  wander  about  without  shelter  and  without  any  resources, 
far  from  their  country. 

In  the  name  of  the  Israelites,  in  the  name  of  humanity,  we 
respectfully  address  Europe  in  favour  of  our  unhappy  coreligion- 
ists of  Bulgaria,  Servia,  Roumelia  and  Roumania.  We  wait  with 
her  for  the  end  of  their  sufferings.  Her  protection  to  them  is 
indispensable  in  the  present  and  in  the  future.  May  Europe  cause 
her  powerful  voice  to  be  heard,  may  she  proclaim  the  equality  of 
men,  independent  of  all  religious  beliefs,  and  may  she  enforce  the 
insertion  of  this  principle  in  the  constitutions!  May  she  at  length 
be  a  vigilant  guardian  over  them! 

Such  is  the  work  which  the  world  looks  for  from  the  Congress 
of  1878.  It  is  demanded  by  the  traditions  of  European  policy, 
by  the  wishes  of  enlightened  men  of  all  nations.  It  will  give 
peace  to  Europe  and  prosperity  to  countries  cruelly  tried  by  the 
war.  It  will  be  pregnant  with  happy  results  for  all  nations, 
glorious  for  our  epoch,  and  the  remembrance  of  this  Congress 
will  remain  indelible  in  the  memory  of  future  generations. 


108  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 


APPENDIX  IV. 

HON.  OSCAE  S.  STRAUS'  MEMORANDA  PRECEDING  DISPATCH  OF  THE  HAY 
ROUMANIAN  NOTE. 

I. 

New  York,  April  2, 1902. 
MR.  JACOB  H.  SCHIFF. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Following  the  conversation  I  had  with  you  yester- 
day regarding  the  terrible  persecutions  of  our  co-religionists  by  the 
Roumanian  Government,  and  as  you  informed  me  that  you  in- 
tended going  to  Washington  to-morrow  and  have  a  conversation 
with  the  President  respecting  some  matters,  I  trust  that  you,  will 
lay  before  him  a  statement  regarding  the  inhuman  treatment  of 
the  Jews  by  the  Roumanian  Government. 

If  the  matter  were  of  concern  to  the  Government  and  people  of 
the  United  States,  and  especially  to  the  Jews  of  our  country,  from 
only  a  humanitarian  standpoint,  I  would  not  have  the  President's 
noble  heart  disturbed  with  its  recital,  but  as  it  is  one  of  practically 
international  bearing,  I  think  it  but  proper  and  just  that  we  should 
get  the  President's  advice  upon  the  subject. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  (13th  of  July,  1878)  between  England, 
France,  Germany,  Austria,  Russia,  Italy  and  Turkey,  Roumania  was 
made  an  independent  kingdom  and  by  the  forty-fourth  article  of 
that  treaty  it  was  provided  that  difference  of  religion  shall  not  be 
ground  for  exclusion  or  incapacity  in  matters  relating  to  civil  and 
political  rights  or  the  exercising  of  the  various  professions  or 
industries.  This  clause  was  put  in  there  specially  to  protect  the 
Jews. 

Notwithstanding  this  express  provision  of  the  treaty,  the  Jews 
are  not  only  excluded  from  civil  rights,  excepting  that  they  are 
compelled  to  serve  in  the  army,  but  not  permitted  to  become  officers 
therein.  They  are  subject  to  exceptional  taxes,  they  are  practically 
excluded  from  all  professions  and  from  owning  and  cultivating 
land,  and  new  laws  are  being  promulgated  practically  shutting 
them  out  from  every  avenue  of  self-support.  They  are  not  per- 
mitted to  become  citizens,  excepting  in  rare  instances.  Now  what 
is  the  result? 

These  people  are  emigrating  en  masse,  that  is,  all  who  have  or 
can  borrow  enough  money  to  pay  for  their  transportation.  As  is 
well  known,  the  obstacles  to  immigration  in  Western  European 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  109 

countries  are  so  great,  that  few  find  resting  places  there  and  they 
are  by  force  of  circumstances  driven  to  our  shores. 

I  am  sure  that  every  American  familiar  with  our  history  will 
ever  approve  of  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  the  famous  divine 
Jonathan  Mayhew,  who  suggested  to  James  Otis  the  idea  of  a 
Commission  of  Correspondence  prior  to  our  Revolution,  when  he 
said  "  and  if  any  miserable  people  of  the  Continent  or  Isles  of 
Europe  be  driven  in  their  extremity  to  seek  a  safe» retreat  from 
slavery  in  some  far  distant  clime,  oh,  let  them  find  one  in  America." 

Yet,  when  any  country  with  whom  we  are  on  terms  of  amity 
and  friendship,  subjects  a  portion  of  its  population  to  such  perse- 
cutions as  to  force  them  in  large  numbers,  and  many  of  them  in  a 
pauperized  condition,  upon  our  shores,  that  in  itself  is  an  un- 
friendly act,  and  aside  from  any  question  of  sentiment,  gives  our 
government  the  right,  not  only  to  protest,  but  to  remonstrate 
against  such  inhuman  laws,  that  discredit  the  age  in  which  we  are 
living. 

As  you  know,  Mr.  Schiff,  reliable  information  has  reached  us 
lately  that  new  laws  and  additional  restrictions  have  recently 
been  placed  upon  the  Jews  in  Roumania,  and,  as  a  result,  emigra- 
tion from  Roumania  and  immigration  into  the  United  States  of  this 
persecuted  people  will  be  and  is  being  augmented. 

The  facts  regarding  this  persecution  are  now  on  file  in  the  office 
of  the  Commissioner  General  of  Immigration,  being  the  reports 
made  by  Special  Immigrant  Inspector  Robert  Watchorn  to  T.  V. 
Powderly,  Commissioner  General  of  Immigration,  during  the 
month  of  September,  1900. 

Inspector  Watchorn,  on  July  28,  1900,  was  instructed  to  report 
"  as  to  the  causes  leading  to  the  exodus  of  the  Roumanian  Jews, 
the  number  and  character  of  those  likely  to  come  to  the  United 
States  and  the  conditions  which  surround  the  people  there  gen- 
erally, and  which  contribute  to  their  leaving  their  native  land." 
Following  these  instructions  he  made  a  series  of  reports,  from 
which  I  extract  a  few  passages: 

That  the  Jewish  population  in  Roumania  numbers  400,000. 

That  a  Jew  may  not  secure,  hold  or  work  land  in  a  rural  dis- 
trict, he  may  not  reside  in  a  rural  district,  he  may  only  reside  in 
one  of  seventy-one  towns  designated  as  abiding  places  for  the  Jews. 

He  may  not  follow  the  occupation  of  an  apothecary,  a  lawyer, 
stock  broker,  a  member  of  the  Bourse  or  Stock  Exchange,  a  pedlar 
or  regular  dealer.  These  are  only  a  few  of  the  callings  denied  him. 

To  be  deprived  of  the  right  to  own,  rent  or  labor  on  a  farm  or 
garden  in  a  peculiarly  agricultural  country  must  be  recognized  as 
a  tremendous  handicap  in  the  race  of  life,  but  to  follow  that  up  with 


110  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

the  closing  of  the  greater  part  of  the  avenues  of  endeavor  in  urban 
countries  greatly  intensifies  the  hardships  to  which  he  is  subjected. 
And,  as  though  the  foregoing  category  was  not  considered  suffi- 
cient, a  still  further  impediment  is  found  in  the  regulation  which 
forbids  employers  of  labor  to  employ  Jews,  until  they  have  first 
employed  two  Christians. 

This  was  the  condition  at  the  time  the  report  was  made.  Within 
the  past  few  months  additional  restrictions  have  been  placed,  so 
that  not  only  are  the  schools  closed  to  the  children  of  the  Jews, 
and  the  special  taxes  increased,  but  they  are  forbidden  to  trade  in 
many  articles  of  commerce  and  to  dispose  of  their  wares  after  they 
have  manufactured  them. 

During  the  administration  of  President  Grant,  in  1872,  when  the 
persecutions  first  attracted  our  attention  in  Roumania,  our  govern- 
ment made  a  strong  remonstrance,  both  in  its  own  behalf  and 
through  its  Consul  at  Bucharest  in  conjunction  with  Germany, 
Austria,  Prance,  Great  Britain,  Greece  and  Italy.  (See  Foreign 
Relations  of  the  United  States,  1872,  pp.  688-690.) 

Secretary  Fish  in  his  Instructions  says: 

This  government  heartily  sympathizes  with  the  popular  in- 
stinct. ...  It  is  deemed  to  be  due  to  humanity  to  remonstrate 
against  any  license  or  impunity  which  may  have  attended  the  out- 
rages in  that  country  .  .  .  and  you  will  also  do  anything  which 
you  discreetly  can  with  a  reasonable  prospect  of  success,  toward 
preventing  the  reoccurrence  or  continuance  of  the  persecution 
adverted  to. 

The  action  taken  by  the  United  States  at  that  time  had  a  marked 
effect  in  moderating  the  action  of  the  Roumanian  Government,  so 
that  the  persecutions  abated  and  so  did  the  emigration  from  Rou- 
mania to  the  United  States,  until  these  persecutions  were  again 
renewed  in  intensity  within  the  last  few  years,  and  consequently 
within  the  past  two  years  the  immigration  of  Roumanian  Jews  into 
this  country  has  grown  inordinately. 

While  not  wishing  to  suggest  for  the  consideration  of  the  Presi- 
dent any  specific  line  of  action,  it  appears  to  me  that  it  would  not  be 
contrary  to  precedent  if  a  strong  resolution  were  introduced  into 
each  House  of  Congress  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  expressive  of  sympathy  and  protesting  against  the 
inhuman  treatment  on  the  part  of  Roumania  of  unoffending  people, 
who  are  driven  by  the  hand  of  persecution  to  seek  refuge  in  our 
country. 

The  President  might  deem  it  proper,  upon  his  own  motion  or 
following  such  a  resolution  of  Congress,  to  send  a  Minister  or 
Special  Commissioner  with  diplomatic  rank  to  Roumania  to  remon- 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  Ill 

strate  against  this  action  on  the  part  of  Roumania.  The  passage  of 
such  a  resolution  authorizing  the  appointment  of  a  Special  Com- 
missioner would  of  itself  have  a  prompt  and  far-reaching  effect,  not 
only  in  Roumania,  but  would  awaken  action  by  the  more  enlight- 
ened European  nations  who  were  parties  to  the  treaty. 

The  fact  that  the  far  greater  number  of  Roumanian  Jewish 
refugees  seek  an  asylum  in  this  country  is  reason  why,  in  my 
judgment,  our  Government  is  justified  in  initiating  such  a  remon- 
strance as  I  have  referred  to. 

Very  truly  yours, 

OSCAR  S.  STRAUS. 

II. 

New  York,  May  15, 1902. 
PRESIDENT  ROOSEVELT. 

SIR:  On  April  4th  last,  through  the  mediation  of  Mr.  Jacob  H. 
Schiff,  of  this  city,  I  had  the  honor  of  laying  before  you  a  state- 
ment regarding  the  terrible  persecutions  of  the  Jews  by  the  Rou- 
manian Government,  and  the  consequent  forced  emigration  to  this 
country  of  a  large  number  of  these  unfortunate  people.  This 
statement  having  been  referred  by  you  to  Secretary  Hay,  I  had  a 
conference  with  him  at  the  Department  of  State,  and  I  was  re- 
quested by  the  Secretary  to  present  a  further  statement  giving 
some  additional  facts,  for  the  consideration  of  the  Government. 

Since  the  date  above  referred  to,  the  conditions  in  Roumania 
have  become  still  more  alarming,  as  appears  from  the  public  press 
and  a  series  of  reports  made  by  the  agent  of  the  Alliance  Israelite 
Universelle  from  Bucharest,  the  last  under  date  of  the  30th  of 
April,  now  before  me. 

In  my  last  statement  I  referred  to  the  official  reports  made  to 
the  Commissioner  General  of  Immigration  of  the  United  States 
by  Special  Immigrant  Inspector  Robert  Watchorn  (September  9, 
1900),  detailing  the  repressive  laws  that  up  to  that  date  had  been 
passed  to  drive  the  Jews  of  Roumania  from  every  avenue  of 
earning  a  livelihood.  These  laws,  and  others  since  enacted,  are 
now  being  rigorously  enforced,  and  the  recent  cable  dispatches 
report  that  some  12,000  able-bodied  artisans,  and  others,  with  their 
families,  are  preparing  to  emigrate  and  seek  a  refuge  in  this 
country.  I  refer  to  this  fact,  not  with  a  view  of  intimating  any 
protest  on  the  part  of  American  Jews  against  receiving  these 
refugees  in  this  country,  which  from  the  day  that  the  Pilgrim 
Fathers  set  foot  upon  our  shores,  has  been  the  haven  of  refuge  for 


112  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

the  persecuted  in  all  lands,  but  on  the  contrary,  to  call  your  atten- 
tion more  specifically  to  the  circumstances,  so  that  our  Government 
may  take  such  action  as  it  has  taken  in  the  past  under  circum- 
stances even  less  aggravating,  and  perhaps  less  rigorous  and 
inhuman,  than  under  the  laws  now  being  enforced  in  Roumania. 

Lord  Stanley,  the  British  Minister  in  1868,  in  protesting  against 
an  outbreak  of  persecution  in  Roumania,  said: 

If  the  suffering  falls  upon  the  Jew  the  disgrace  falls  upon  the 
Christian.  ...  I  can  only  explain  the  action  of  the  Roumanian 
Minister  as  the  tendency  of  a  weak  and  not  very  scrupulous  gov- 
ernment to  trade  on  the  worst  popular  passions.  (See  supra, 
pp.  3, 104.) 

Lord  Shaftesbury,  at  a  later  period,  said: 

The  records  of  this  principality  have  been  stained  by  a  series  of 
bloodthirsty  actions  that  would  have  been  a  disgrace  to  the  wildest 
savages  in  the  remotest  parts  of  Africa,  and  we  can  hardly  hold 
it  to  be  credible  that  they  were  committed  by  the  inhabitants  of 
Roumania  in  Europe.  (See  supra,  p.  16.) 

Under  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  (1878)  it  was  provided  that  relig- 
ious and  political  freedom  should  be  guaranteed  to  all  Roumanian 
subjects,  irrespective  of  creed  or  race,  but  no  sooner  had  Roumania 
obtained  her  independence  than  by  subterfuge  she  evaded  the  pro- 
visions of  that  Treaty  by  classifying  the  Jews  as  "  Aliens," 
although  they  and  their  forbears  for  generations  were  born  and 
have  lived  in  that  country. 

Without  entering  upon  the  international  aspect  of  the  question, 
which  gives  to  our  country  the  right  to  remonstrate  against  the 
action  of  another  country  with  which  it  is  at  peace,  from  perse- 
cuting a  portion  of  its  population,  so  that  they  are  driven  en  masse 
to  seek  a  refuge  in  this  country,  permit  me  to  refer  to  the  action 
taken  by  our  Government  under  the  administrations  of  President 
Grant  and  President  Harrison.  In  1872,  when  the  persecutions 
became  marked  in  Roumania  (then  known  as  the  principalities  of 
Moldavia  and  Wallachia),  Mr.  Fish  instructed  our  Ministers  ac- 
credited to  the  principal  European  powers  as  follows  ( I  quote  from 
the  instructions  sent  to  Minister  Curtin  at  St.  Petersburg,  Foreign 
Relations,  1872): 

It  has  been  suggested  to  this  Department,  and  the  suggestion  is 
concurred  in,  that  if  the  sympathy  which  we  entertain  for  the 
inhumanly  persecuted  Hebrews  in  the  principalities  of  Moldavia 
and  Wallachia  were  made  known  to  the  Government  to  which  you 
are  accredited  it  might  quicken  and  encourage  the  efforts  of  that 
Government  to  discharge  its  duty  as  a  protecting  power  pursuant 
to  the  obligations  of  the  Treaty  between  certain  European  States. 
Although  we  are  not  a  party  to  that  instrument,  and,  as  a  rule, 
scrupulously  abstain  from  interfering  directly  or  indirectly  in  the 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  113 

public  affairs  of  that  quarter,  the  grievance  adverted  to  is  so 
enormous  as  to  impart  to  it,  as  it  were,  a  cosmopolitan  character, 
in  the  redress  of  which  all  countries,  governments,  and  creeds  are 
alike  interested.  You  will  consequently  communicate  on  this  sub- 
ject with  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  Russia  in  such  a  way 
as  you  may  suppose  might  be  most  likely  to  compass  the  object  in 
view. 

( See  also  as  to  instructions  sent  to  other  Ministers  of  the  United 
States  in  Europe,  Foreign  Relations,  1872,  page  698.) 

In  1891  Secretary  Elaine  instructed  Charles  Emory  Smith, 
United  States  Minister  to  Russia,  as  follows: 

The  mutual  duties  of  nations  require  that  each  should  use  its 
power  with  due  regard  for  the  results  which  its  exercise  produces 
on  the  rest  of  the  world.  It  is  in  this  respect  that  the  condition  of 
the  Jews  in  Russia  is  now  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  United 
States,  upon  whose  shores  are  cast  daily  evidences  of  the  sufferings 
and  destitution  wrought  by  the  enforcement  of  the  edicts  against 
these  unhappy  people.  (Foreign  Relations,  1891,  p.  739.) 

Permit  me  also  to  refer  in  this  connection  to  President  Har- 
rison's third  annual  message  to  Congress  wherein  he  refers  more 
in  detail  to  the  action  that  was  taken  by  our  Government,  and  to 
the  bases  of  our  remonstrances. 

From  a  statement  before  me,  made  by  the  United  Hebrew 
Charities  of  this  city,  it  appears  that  by  reason  largely,  if  not 
entirely,  of  the  increased  persecution  of  the  Jews  in  Roumania,  the 
number  of  Roumanian  Jewish  immigrants  that  have  arrived  at  the 
port  of  New  York  since  October  1,  1899,  to  October  1,  1901,  is  in 
round  numbers  some  16,000.  Since  then  the  law  of  March,  1902, 
has  been  passed,  prohibiting  the  employment  of  Jewish  work- 
ingmen  in  any  trade.  It  is  quite  evident  that  the  enforcement  of 
this  law  will  cause  all  of  these  persecuted  people  who  can  by  the 
sale  of  their  effects,  or  otherwise,  secure  the  means  of  transporta- 
tion, to  leave  the  country,  and  that  many  of  them  thus  forced  to 
abandon  their  homes  and  to  sacrifice  their  effects,  will  be  driven  in 
an  impoverished  condition  to  seek  a  refuge  in  this  country- 

Mr.  President,  I  am  voicing  the  sentiment  and  earnest  appeal  of 
the  Jews  of  the  United  States  in  petitioning  you  to  make  the  protest 
and  remonstrances  of  our  Government  known  to  the  King  and  the 
Government  of  Roumania,  and  to  instruct  our  Ambassadors  and 
Ministers  to  confer  with  the  Governments  to  which  they  are 
accredited,  with  a  view  that  similar  action  may  be  taken  by  the 
chief  European  powers  who  are  parties  to  the  Treaty  of  Berlin. 

The  remonstrance  of  our  Government  in  behalf  of  oppressed 
humanity  which  has  time  and  again  had  so  much  effect  in  the 

9 


114  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

past,  cannot  fail  to  have  great  influence  at  this  present  crisis  im- 
pending over  the  Jews  of  Roumania.  The  Government  of  no 
country  has  a  better  right  to  make  such  a  remonstrance  than  the 
United  States,  which  will  in  all  probability  receive  the  largest 
number  of  those  oppressed  people  who  are  forced  by  these  restric- 
tive and  repressive  laws  to  seek  a  refuge  in  foreign  lands. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

OSCAR  S.  STRAUS. 

APPENDIX  V. 
THE  JEWS  OF  ROUMANIA  AND  THE  TREATY  OF  BERLIN. 

Extracts  from  an  address  delivered  by  the  Hon.  Walter  M. 
Chandler,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  October 
10,  191S.™ 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  now  to  address  myself  to  the  subject  of  Rou- 
manian persecution  of  the  Jews  in  defiance  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin, 
and  I  preface  my  remarks  by  reciting  a  joint  resolution  which  I 
have  introduced  this  afternoon. 

The  joint  resolution  is  as  follows: 

House  joint  resolution  138. 

Whereas  the  following  is  the  literal  text  of  Articles  XLIII  and 
XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  of  July  13,  1878: 

"  XLIII.  The  high  contracting  parties  recognize  the  independ- 
ence of  Roumania,  subject  to  the  conditions  set  forth  in  the  two 
following  articles. 

"XLIV.  In  Roumania  the  difference  of  religious  creeds  and 
confessions  shall  not  be  alleged  against  any  person  as  a  ground 
for  exclusion  or  incapacity  in  matters  relating  to  the  enjoyment 
of  civil  and  political  rights,  admission  to  public  employments, 
functions,  and  honors,  or  the  exercise  of  the  various  professions 
and  industries  in  any  locality  whatsoever. 

"  The  freedom  and  outward  exercise  of  all  forms  of  worship 
shall  be  assured  to  all  persons  belonging  to  the  Roumanian  state, 
as  well  as  to  foreigners,  and  no  hindrance  shall  be  offered  either 
to  the  hierarchical  organization  of  the  different  communions 
or  to  their  relations  with  their  spiritual  chiefs. 

"  The  subjects  and  citizens  of  all  the  powers,  traders  or  others, 
shall  be  treated  in  Roumania,  without  distinction  of  creed,  on  a 
footing  of  perfect  equality." 

Whereas  the  Government  of  Roumania  accepted  the  terms  of  said 
articles  of  said  treaty  as  a  condition  precedent  to  the  recognition 
of  her  independence;  and 

118  See  Congressional  Record,  vol.  50,  p.  5541,  et  seq.;  see  supra, 
p.  83. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  115 

Whereas  it  is  a  matter  of  certain  knowledge  that  the  Jews  of  Rou- 

mania,  numbering  about  250,000,  have  been  the  barbarized  and 

impoverished  victims  of  Roumanian  discriminatory  legislation 

and  of  Roumanian  riots  and  massacres  for  a  period  of  more  than 

30  years  in  violation  of  both  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  treaty 

of  Berlin:     Therefore  be  it 

Resolved  ty  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  it  is  the 
sense  of  the  American  Congress  that  the  interests  of  civilization, 
the  rights  of  humanity,  the  principles  of  eternal  justice,  and  the 
dignity  and  sanctity  of  international  law  demand  that  the  signa- 
tory Powers  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  compel  Roumania  to  observe 
the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  in  the  matter  of  the  treat- 
ment of  the  Jews. 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  requested  to  transmit 
a  copy  of  this  resolution  to  the  Governments  of  Great  Britain, 
Germany,  Austria,  Russia,  France,  Italy,  and  Turkey 

The  modern  Kingdom  of  Roumania  was  formed  by  the  union 
of  the  ancient  Principalities  of  Moldavia  and  Wallachia,  prov- 
inces situated  near  the  mouth  of  the  Danube,  having  an  area  of 
about  50,000  square  miles,  and  occupying  an  extent  of  territory 
some  350  miles  in  length  and  160  miles  in  breadth.  The  shape 
of  the  country  is  an  irregular  half-moon,  touching  the  Black  Sea 
near  the  center  of  the  crescent. 

The  people  of  Roumania  proudly  boast  a  classic  antiquity  in 
their  supposed  descent  from  the  Romans  who  conquered  the 
ancient  Scythian  Kingdom  of  Dacia,  which  was  practically  the 
modern  territory  of  Roumania. 

If  not  classic  in  history  the  country  of  Roumania  is  at  least 
classic  and  historic  in  soil,  for  the  legions  of  Rome,  the  hordes 
of  Attilla,  the  crusaders  of  Richard  and  Barbarossa,  and  the 
Cossacks  of  Peter  the  Great,  have  crossed  its  borders  and  traversed 
its  plains. 

The  language  of  Roumania  has  a  groundwork  of  Latin  and 
Slavonic,  with  a  superstructure  of  Turkish,  Greek,  and  French. 

The  social,  political,  religious,  and  intellectual  life  of  the  people 
is  a  strange,  weird  blending  of  the  cruder  forms  of  occidental  and 
oriental  civilizations. 

The  population  of  Roumania  in  1910  was  about  6,850,000.  Fully 
6,000,000  of  these  were  Roumans  or  Vlachs;  the  rest  were  Jews, 
Armenians,  Gypsies,  Greeks,  Germans,  Turks,  Magyars,  Servians, 
and  Bulgarians. 

Of  the  total  population  of  Roumania  the  Jews  number  about 
250,000.  And  it  is  with  the  Jews  of  Roumania,  in  their  relation- 
ship as  citizens  and  subjects  to  the  Government  of  Roumania,  and 


116  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

with  the  Government  of  Roumania  in  its  relationship  to  its  Jewish 
population,  under  binding  treaty  obligations  entered  into  by  Rou- 
mania with  the  great  Powers  of  Europe,  that  I  shall  hereafter  in 
this  address  deal  particularly  and  pointedly. 

I  desire  especially  to  discuss  the  persecution  of  the  Jews  by 
Roumania,  in  defiance  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  of  July  13,  1878. 
I  shall,  however,  in  the  first  place,  as  a  foundation  for  that  dis- 
cussion, submit  for  your  consideration  a  classified  list  of  Rou- 
manian laws,  passed  during  the  half  century  preceding  the 
assembling  of  the  Congress  of  Berlin,  which  were  intended  to 
discriminate  against  the  Jews.  This  list,  though  short,  may  be 
tedious  and  tiresome  to  study  and  contemplate,  but  it  will  be 
decidedly  illuminating  and  enlightening  when  we  come  to  con- 
sider the  motive  and  conduct  of  the  great  Powers  in  forcing 
Roumania,  through  treaty  stipulations,  to  accord  better  treat- 
ment to  her  Jewish  subjects.  The  following  is  a  resume,  with 
authorities  cited,  of  the  leading  Roumanian  legal  enactments 
against  the  Jews  between  the  years  1802  and  1876: 

1803.  Alexander  Monize  forbids  Jews  to  rent  farms.  ("Ameri- 
can Jewish  Year  Book,"  1901,  p.  48.) 

May  18,  1804.  Alexander  Monize,  of  Moldavia,  forbids  Jews  to 
buy  farm  products.  (Loeb,  "La  Situation  des  Israelites  en  Tur- 
quie,  en  Serbie  et  en  Roumanie,"  p.  212,  Paris,  1877,  hereafter  cited 
as  "Loeb.") 

1817.  Code  Cahmachi,  section  1430,  forbids  Jews  of  Roumania  to 
acquire  real  property.  (Loeb,  p.  213.) 

By  1818.  Code  of  John  Caradja,  of  Wallachia,  repeats  the  ancient 
church  laws  against  allowing  Jews  to  be  witnesses  against  Christ- 
ians. (American  Jewish  Year  Book,  1901,  p.  50.) 

By  1819.  Code  of  Kallimachor  of  Moldavia  gives  civil  rights  to 
Jews,  who,  however,  may  not  own  land.  (American  Jewish  Year 
Book,  1901,  p.  50.) 

1831.  Fundamental  law  of  Moldavia,  chapter  3,  section  94, 
orders  all  Jews  and  their  occupations  to  be  registered;  Jews  not 
of  proved  usefulness  are  to  be  expelled ;  others  of  same  class  shall 
not  be  allowed  to  enter.  (Loeb,  p.  214.) 

March  11,  1839.  Tax  of  60  piasters  per  annum  placed  on  Jews 
of  Moldavia.  (Loeb,  p.  215.) 

December  12,  1850.  No  Jew  allowed  to  enter  Roumania  unless 
possessed  of  5,000  piasters  and  of  known  occupation.  (Loeb,  p.  216.) 

May  5,  1851.  Appointment  of  commission  of  vagabondage  at 
Jassy  to  determine  right  of  entry  of  foreign  Jews.  (Loeb,  p.  216.) 

June  17,  1861.  Circular  of  Roumanian  ministry  preventing  Jews 
from  being  innkeepers  in  rural  districts.  (Loeb,  p.  217.) 

April  12,  1864.  Communal  law  of  Roumania  permits  only  those 
Jews  to  be  naturalized  who  (1)  have  reached  the  grade  of  non- 
commissioned officers  in  the  army  (2)  or  have  passed  through  col- 
lege (3)  or  have  a  recognized  foreign  degree  (4)  or  have  founded  a 
factory.  (Loeb,  pp.  107-108.) 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  117 

December  4,  1864.  Jews  excluded  from  being  advocates.  (Loeb, 
p.  124.) 

December  7,  1864.  Elementary  education  obligatory  for  all 
children  between  the  ages  of  8  and  12.  (Sincerus,  "  Les  Juifs  en 
Roumanie,"  p.  119,  hereafter  cited  as  "  Sincerus.") 

April  14,  1866.  Ghika,  Roumanian  Minister  of  Interior,  permits 
Jews  already  settled  in  rural  districts  to  keep  farms  till  leases  run 
out,  but  they  must  not  renew  them.  (Loeb,  p.  218.) 

March,  1868.  Law  submitted  to  chamber  preventing  Jews  from 
holding  land,  settling  in  the  country,  selling  food,  keeping  inns, 
holding  public  office,  trading  without  special  permits.  Jews  already 
settled  in  rural  districts  were  to  be  driven  therefrom.  This  was 
withdrawn  April  5  in  fear  of  the  intervention  of  the  Powers. 
(Loeb,  pp.  169,  311-312.) 

June  23,  1868.  All  Roumanians  forced  to  serve  in  Army,  "but 
not  strangers"  (Loeb,  p.  109);  therefore  Jews  who  served  were 
for  this  purpose  regarded  as  Roumanians. 

December  27,  1868.  Jews  excluded  from  medical  profession  in 
Roumania.  (Loeb,  p.  124.)  Clause  omitted  in  decree  of  June,  1871. 

January  15,  1869.  Jews  not  allowed  to  be  tax  farmers  in  rural 
communes.  (Loeb,  p.  112.) 

July,  1869.  Note  of  M.  Cogalniceanu  to  French  consul  at  Bucha- 
rest refuses  to  consider  Jews  as  Roumanians.  (Loeb,  p.  102.) 

October,  1869.  Extra  tax  put  on  kosher  meat  at  Roman  and 
Focsan.  (Loeb,  p.  127.) 

October  25,  1869.  Jews  prevented  from  being  apothecaries  in 
Roumania,  except  where  there  are  no  Roumanian  apothecaries. 
(Loeb,  p.  125;  Sincerus,  p.  102.) 

November  10,  1870.  Servian  Jews  obliged  to  serve  in  Army. 
(Loeb,  p.  57.) 

February  15,  1872.  All  dealers  in  tobacco  in  Roumania  must  be 
"Roumanians."  (Loeb,  p.  120.) 

April  1,  1873.  Law  forbidding  Jews  to  sell  spirituous  liquors  in 
rural  districts.  (Loeb,  p.  188.)  A  license  may  be  given  only  to 
an  elector.  (Sincerus,  p.  19.) 

These  enactments  show  the  legal  disabilities  of  the  Jews.  But 
they  do  not  tell  the  full  story  of  shame  and  humiliation  of  a  long- 
suffering  and  wretched  people.  Written  in  the  calm  and  dignified 
phraseology  of  the  law  they  cannot  and  do  not  recount  the  bloody 
details  of  riot  and  massacre,  whose  occurrence  was  the  disgrace 
of  civilization  and  whose  horrors  compose  the  blackest  chapters 
of  Roumanian  history.  I  will  not  harrow  your  feelings  with  a 
recital  of  the  details.  I  shall  content  myself  with  a  simple  and 
dispassionate  discussion  of  legal  rights  and  treaty  obligations  in 
the  matter  of  Roumania  and  the  Jews. 

It  was  at  the  close  of  the  War  of  the  Crimea  that  the  great 
Governments  of  Europe  first  gave  serious  attention  to  the  op- 
pressions of  the  Jews  by  the  rulers  of  the  principalities  of 
Moldavia  and  Wallachia,  the  provinces  from  which  the  kingdom 


118  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

of  Roumania  was  afterwards  formed.  At  that  time  the  first 
decisive  effort  was  made  to  relieve  the  legal  disabilities  of  the 
Jews. 

The  following  articles  of  the  protocol  of  the  conference  of  Con- 
stantinople of  the  llth  of  February,  1856,  imposed,  it  must  be 
admitted,  rather  exacting  terms  upon  Moldavia  and  Wallachia: 

XIII.  All  the  religions  and  those  who  profess  them  shall  enjoy 
equal  liberty  and  equal  protection  in  the  two  Principalities. 

XV.  Foreigners  may  possess  landed  property  in  Moldavia  and 
Wallachia  on  discharging  the  same  liabilities  as  natives  and  on 
submitting  to  the  laws. 

XVI.  All  Moldavians  and  Wallachians,  without  exception,  shall 
be  admissible  to  public  employments. 

XVIII.  All  classes  of  the  population,  without  any  distinction  of 
birth  or  religion,  shall  enjoy  equality  of  civil  rights  and  particu- 
larly of  the  right  of  property  in  every  shape,  but  the  exercise  of 
political  rights  shall  be  suspended  in  the  case  of  natives  placed 
under  a  foreign  protection. 

The  language  of  these  articles  was  an  emphatic  and  unequivocal 
declaration  in  favor  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  for  all  the  in- 
habitants of  Roumania.  A  complete  realization  of  the  protection 
afforded  by  these  articles  would  have  been  all  that  the  Jews  could 
reasonably  have  asked.  But  such  a  thing  was  not  to  be.  No  such 
blessing  was  in  store  for  them.  The  reigning  Prince  of  Moldavia, 
Gregory  Ghika,  began  at  once  a  course  of  subterfuge  and  evasion 
for  the  purpose  of  rendering  abortive  the  intentions  and  efforts  of 
the  Powers.  He  contended  that  a  strict  application  of  the  pro- 
visions of  these  articles  was  impracticable,  if  not  impossible,  on 
account  of  the  great  number  of  unassimilated  Jews  in  the  Princi- 
palities; and  two  years  later  he  presented  a  memorial  to  the  Con- 
gress of  Paris  asking  that  the  realization  of  the  principle  em- 
bodied in  the  articles  of  the  protocol  of  the  Conference  of  Con- 
stantinople, which  he  admitted  to  be  excellent  within  itself,  should 
be  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  local  Government,  which  alone,  he 
contended,  knew  how  to  apply  the  principle.  His  arguments  were 
plausible,  if  not  sound  and  righteous,  and  at  last,  out  of  deference 
to  the  wishes  and  pledges  of  Ghika,  the  Powers  modified  their 
intentions  by  the  adoption  of  Article  XLVI  of  the  Convention  of 
Paris,  which  runs  as  follows: 

All  Moldavians  and  Wallachians  shall  be  equal  in  the  eye  of  the 
law  and  with  regard  to  taxation,  and  shall  be  equally  admissible 
to  public  employments  in  both  principalities. 

Their  individual  liberty  shall  be  guaranteed.  No  one  can  be 
detained  or  prosecuted  but  in  conformity  with  the  law.  No  one 
can  be  deprived  of  his  property  unless  legally  for  causes  of  public 
interest  and  on  payment  of  indemnification. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  119 

Moldavians  and  Wallachians  of  all  Christian  confessions  shall 
equally  enjoy  political  rights.  The  enjoyment  of  these  rights  may 
be  extended  to  other  religions  by  legislative  arrangements. 

Indeed,  the  pledge  of  Ghika  and  the  expectations  of  the  Powers 
based  upon  this  pledge,  were  that  the  Jews  would  be  gradually 
enfranchised  and  emancipated  politically  by  legislative  arrange- 
ments. But  Roumanian  legislation  during  the  past  50  years  shows 
how  badly  founded  were  those  expectations  and  how  complete  has 
been  the  evasion  of  that  pledge. 

Instead  of  relieving  their  legal  disabilities,  the  efforts  of  the 
Powers  to  help  the  Jews  through  stipulations  of  the  Conventions 
of  Constantinople  and  Paris  proved  to  be  a  positive  misfortune. 
"  So  far,"  says  a  modern  writer,  "  from  ameliorating  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Jews,  the  Convention  of  Paris  by  a  regrettable  accident 
led  to  more  burdensome  disabilities  and  more  barbarous  persecu- 
tion than  they  had  ever  before  endured.  Under  the  old  organic 
laws,  by  which  the  Principalities  were  governed  previously  to 
1859,  the  people  had  no  effective  voice  in  the  government.  Hence 
there  was  little  cause  for  jealousy  between  Christians  and  Jews, 
and  with  the  exception  of  occasional  explosions  of  religious  fa- 
naticism, they  lived  together  in  harmony.  The  new  order  of  things 
established  in  1858  destroyed  this  equality.  It  gave  to  the  Chris- 
tian population  a  monopoly  of  political  power  which  they  were 
not  slow  to  use  against  their  trade  rivals  among  the  unenfran- 
chised Jews.  This  unfortunate  incidence  of  the  Convention  of 
Paris  was  aggravated  by  the  new  electoral  law  under  which  a  pre- 
ponderating franchise  was  reserved  for  the  mercantile  classes, 
with  whom  the  Jews,  being  chiefly  of  the  same  classes,  most 
directly  competed.  The  result  was  that  not  only  was  the  fulfill- 
ment of  Article  XLVI  of  the  Convention  of  Paris  rendered  im- 
possible, but  the  whole  influence  of  the  mercantile  electorate  was 
employed  to  obtain  the  imposition  of  fresh  disabilities  upon  the 
Jews  and  to  inflame  the  religious  and  racial  prejudices  of  the 
populace  against  them.  Instead  of  gradually  emancipating  them 
in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Convention  of  Paris,  even 
their  status  as  'non-Christian  Moldo-Wallachs,'  acknowledged  in 
that  instrument,  was  denied  them.  They  were  assimilated  by  the 
civil  code  of  1864  to  aliens,  though  admitted  by  the  code  to  be 
'  indigenes,'  and  were  made  dependent  on  a  difficult  and  tedious 
process  of  naturalization  for  their  acquisition  of  political  rights 
(Arts.  VIII,  IX,  and  XVI).  Even  this  privilege  was  withdrawn 
from  them  by  the  constitution  of  1866,  which  declared  (Art.  VII) 


120  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

'that  only  Christians  may  obtain  naturalization.'  Consequently 
Article  XLVI  of  the  Convention  of  Paris  remained  a  dead  letter." 

In  the  meantime  the  Jews  of  Roumania  were  more  bitterly 
oppressed  than  ever.  New  laws  discriminating  against  them 
were  passed ;  riots  and  massacres  were  renewed  with  greater  fury. 
They  were  languishing  in  a  bondage  worse  than  that  endured  by 
their  fathers  in  ancient  Egypt  when  hope  was  revived  again 
among  them  by  the  adoption  of  Article  XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of 
Berlin  of  July  13,  1878. 

The  Berlin  Congress  of  1878  was  a  gathering  at  the  German 
national  capital  of  the  brainiest  and  most  brilliant  statesmen  of 
Europe.  The  purpose  of  the  Congress  was  to  settle  the  questions 
growing  out  of  the  Russo-Turkish  war  of  1877-78. 

On  the  24th  of  April,  1877,  Russia  declared  war  against  Turkey 
with  the  avowed  object  of  protecting  the  Christian  inhabitants 
of  the  Ottoman  Empire.  Bulgaria,  Roumania,  Servia,  and  Monte- 
negro were  either  tacitly  or  openly  the  allies  of  the  Czar.  After 
varying  successes  the  fortunes  of  war  finally  favored  the  Russians, 
and  the  fall  of  Plevna  opened  the  way  to  Constantinople.  The 
Turks  sued  for  peace,  and  on  March  3,  1878,  the  Treaty  of  San 
Stefano  was  signed.  Some  of  the  terms  of  this  treaty  were  dis- 
pleasing to  several  of  the  Governments  of  Europe.  Austria  and 
England  were  decidedly  dissatisfied.  The  political  changes  made 
and  the  territorial  readjustments  provided  for  in  the  Treaty,  to- 
gether with  the  exaction  of  1,400,000,000  rubles  war  indemnity, 
which  promised  to  cripple  most  *seriously  the  resources  of  the 
Turkish  Empire  for  years  to  come,  practically  made  the  Czar 
permanent  arbiter  of  Balkan  affairs.  To  avert  such  a  catastrophe 
had  been  the  traditional  policy  of  Austria,  and  to  prevent  a  result 
so  disastrous  to  her  interests,  England  had  waged  the  war  of  the 
Crimea. 

Assuming  the  initiative  in  the  matter  Count  Andrassy,  in  the 
name  of  the  Austrian  Government,  dispatched  a  circular  note  to 
the  signatory  Powers  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris  of  1856  and  the  Lon- 
don protocol  of  1871  suggesting  an  international  congress  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing  "  the  agreement  of  Europe  on  the  modi- 
fications which  it  might  become  necessary  to  introduce  into  the 
above-mentioned  Treaties,"  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty 
of  San  Stefano.  The  suggestion  of  Count  Andrassy  met  with  a 
ready  response.  Germany  was  especially  willing  to  cooperate 
with  England  and  with  Austria,  her  ally,  in  the  assembling  of  a 
congress  of  which  her  own  great  statesman,  Bismarck,  was  sure  to 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  121 

be  the  dominating  figure.  Russia  was  naturally  displeased  with 
the  turn  events  had  taken.  She  felt  intuitively  that  she  would  lose 
all  that  she  had  gained  in  the  war  with  Turkey  if  she  consented 
to  the  revision  of  the  articles  of  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano  by  an 
international  conference  dominated  by  her  enemies. 

But  she  was  powerless  to  resist.  She  demanded,  however,  as  a 
condition  of  giving  her  consent  to  the  assembling  of  the  proposed 
congress  and  of  her  participation  in  its  proceedings,  that  the  scope 
of  its  powers  be  limited  by  the  exclusion  of  certain  clauses  of  the 
Treaty  of  San  Stefano  from  its  consideration.  The  reply  of 
Disraeli,  on  behalf  of  England,  to  this  demand  was  to  mobilize  the 
militia  and  to  bring  Indian  troops  to  the  Mediterranean.  Finding 
that  the  diplomatic  support  which  she  had  hoped  to  receive  from 
Bismarck  had  failed  her,  she  took  the  hint,  and  finally  consented 
to  submit  the  whole  question  of  the  Balkan  situation  to  the  deter- 
minations of  a  new  international  conference. 

On  the  3d  of  June,  1878,  Count  Minister,  in  the  name  of  the 
German  Emperor,  invited  the  delegates  of  the  signatory  Powers 
of  the  Treaty  of  Paris  of  1856  to  assemble  at  Berlin.  The  invi- 
tation was  accepted.  Great  Britain  was  represented  by  Lord 
Beaconsfield,  Lord  Salisbury,  and  Lord  Russell ;  Germany  by  Prince 
Bismarck,  Prince  Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst,  and  Baron  von  Billow; 
Austria  by  Count  Andrassy,  Baron  Karolyi,  and  Baron  von  Hay- 
merle  ;  Italy  by  Count  Corti  and  Count  Launay ;  France  by  William 
H.  Waddington,  Felix  Desprez,  and  Le  Comte  de  St.  Vallier; 
Russia  by  her  imperial  chancellor,  Prince  Gorchakov,  Count 
Shuvalov,  and  Paul  D'Oubril;  Turkey  by  Alexander  Pasha,  Ali 
Pasha,  and  Sadullah  Bey. 

These  distinguished  representatives  of  the  leading  nations  of 
the  world — lords,  princes,  barons,  counts,  ambassadors,  and  prime 
ministers — men  renowned  in  statesmanship,  diplomacy,  law,  and 
letters,  convened,  and  organized  the  Congress  of  Berlin,  on  the 
13th  day  of  June,  1878,  under  the  presidency  of  Prince  Bismarck. 

On  the  13th  of  July,  a  month  after  the  assembling  of  the  con- 
gress, the  Treaty  of  Berlin  was  signed.  It  consists  of  64  articles. 

Two  great  purposes  of  the  delegates  of  the  congress  are  revealed 
in  the  terms  of  the  Treaty: 

(1)  The  reconstruction,  upon  an  equitable  basis,  of  the  map  of 
southeastern  Europe; 

(2)  The  establishment  of  the  independence  of  certain  Balkan 
States  upon  a  foundation  of  civil  and  religious  liberty. 


122  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

The  first  great  purpose  was  achieved,  in  the  main,  by  certain 
territorial  changes.  Bulgaria  was  divided  into  two  parts — Bul- 
garia proper  and  Eastern  Rumelia.  Parts  of  Armenia  were  given 
to  Russia  and  Persia.  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  were  transferred 
to  Austria,  and  Bessarabia  was  restored  to  Russia. 

The  second  great  purpose  was  accomplished  by  the  recognition 
of  the  independence  of  Roumania,  Servia,  and  Montenegro  under 
terms  of  guaranty  by  them  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  to  all  the 
inhabitants  of  their  territories. 

In  the  archives  of  history  are  few  more  important  documents 
than  the  Treaty  of  Berlin.  It  readjusted  the  boundaries  of  king- 
doms and  empires.  It  proclaimed  the  independence  of  states  and 
the  freedom  of  races.  It  was,  above  all,  a  grand  proclamation  of 
religious  emancipation. 

The  conditions  of  life  among  the  Jews  of  Roumania  were  far 
more  pitiable  and  their  political  situation  was  infinitely  worse 
when  the  Berlin  Congress  convened  in  1878  than  they  had  been 
20  years  before  when  the  Conferences  of  Constantinople  and 
Paris  met.  In  1858  the  legal  status  of  the  Jews  was  admitted 
to  be  that  of  unenfranchised  Roumanians.  In  1878  they  had  been 
declared  to  be  outcasts  and  aliens,  and  were  cruelly  treated  as 
such.  A  succession  of  barbarous  persecutions,  culminating  in 
riots  and  massacres  had  reduced  them  to  such  a  state  of  misery 
and  degradation  that  the  pity  of  mankind  was  excited  and  the 
indignation  of  the  civilized  world  found  vigorous  expression  in 
official  protests  to  the  great  powers  of  Europe.  This  was  the  state 
of  affairs  when  Roumania  asked  the  delegates  to  the  Congress  of 
Berlin  to  recognize  her  independence  as  a  kingdom. 

The  representatives  of  the  powers  knew  well  the  cunning 
character  of  Roumanian  statesmanship.  They  remembered  dis- 
tinctly the  subterfuge  and  chicanery  employed  to  evade  the  pledges 
given  at  the  time  of  the  Conferences  of  Constantinople  and  Paris. 
They  recalled  that  discretion  had  been  allowed  and  that  it  had 
been  abused  in  the  matter  of  the  promise  of  Ghika  to  emancipate 
the  Jews  gradually  by  legislative  enactment.  They  now  resolved 
to  withdraw  all  discretion  from  the  Government  of  Bucharest  in 
the  matter  of  the  emancipation  of  its  non-Christian  subjects.  And 
to  the  demand  of  Roumania  that  her  independence  be  recognized 
the  Powers  responded  with  Articles  XLIII  and  XLJV  of  the  Treaty 
of  Berlin  of  July  13,  1878,  which  imposed  as  a  condition  of  recogni- 
tion the  absolute  equality  of  all  religious  creeds  and  confessions 
in  the  Kingdom.  The  following  is  the  text  of  those  articles: 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  123 

XLIII.  The  high  contracting  parties  recognize  the  independence 
of  Roumania,  subject  to  the  conditions  set  forth  in  the  two  follow- 
ing articles: 

XLIV.  In  Roumania  the  difference  of  religious  creeds  and  con- 
fessions shall  not  be  alleged  against  any  person  as  a  ground  for 
exclusion  or  incapacity  in  matters  relating  to  the  enjoyment  of 
civil  and  political  rights,  admission  to  public  employments,  func- 
tions, and  honors,  or  the  exercise  of  the  various  professions  and 
industries  in  any  locality  whatsoever. 

The  freedom  and  outward  exercise  of  all  forms  of  worship  shall 
be  assured  to  all  persons  belonging  to  the  Roumanian  State,  as 
well  as  to  foreigners,  and  no  hindrance  shall  be  offered  either  to 
the  hierarchical  organization  of  the  different  communions  or  to 
their  relations  with  their  spiritual  chiefs. 

The  subjects  and  citizens  of  all  the  powers,  traders  or  others, 
shall  be  treated  in  Roumania  without  distinction  of  creed  on  a 
footing  of  perfect  equality. 

Such  were  the  terms  offered  by  the  Congress  of  Berlin  to  Rou- 
mania as  a  condition  of  the  recognition  of  her  independence. 

Strangely  and  unfortunately  the  Powers  were  once  again  per- 
suaded to  agree  to  a  compromise.  "  That  only  Christians  may 
obtain  naturalization  "  was  a  provision  of  Article  VII  of  the  Rou- 
manian constitution  of  1866.  Acting  upon  the  arbitrary  and  illegal 
assumption  that  all  Jews  were  aliens,  Roumania  contended  that 
the  only  disability  imposed  upon  them  was  exclusion  from  natura- 
lization under  this  article,  and  she  consequently  proposed  to  revise 
Article  VII  of  her  constitution  as  a  satisfaction  of  Article  XLIV 
of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin.  The  offer  of  Roumania,  in  other  words, 
was  to  open  the  door  of  naturalization  to  the  Jews,  the  inference 
then  being,  of  course,  that  all  other  blessings  would  flow  from 
citizenship. 

The  Powers  pointed  out  in  reply  that  by  the  Roumanian  natu- 
ralization law  the  "  equality  of  citizen  "  could  only  be  obtained 
after  a  probation  of  10  years,  and  then  by  individual  act  of  Parlia- 
ment, which  was  liable  to  be  defeated  by  the  Chambers;  and  the 
offer  of  compromise  was  consequently  declined. 

Roumania  then  changed  her  ground  by  deserting  her  legal 
position  and  urging  a  plea  of  expediency.  She  insisted  that  if 
the  Jews  were  not  aliens  in  law,  they  were  aliens  in  fact,  "not 
only  by  their  religion,  but  by  language,  custom,  manners,  aspira- 
tions— in  a  word,  by  all  that  constitutes  distinctive  character  in 
a  man  as  a  member  of  society."  She  contended,  further,  that  the 
Jews  were  "  illiterate  and  fanatical,"  and  that  they  were  "  pecu- 
liarly accessible  to  foreign  influences,  and  that,  owing  to  their 
large  numbers,  they  were  calculated  to  strike  a  fatal  blow  at  the 


124  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

homogeneity  of  the  Roumanian  national  character."  And  as  a  final 
plea  it  was  urged  that  "the  nation  was  strongly  opposed  to  an 
immediate  and  wholesale  emancipation,  and  that  if  the  Powers 
insisted  upon  it  the  effect  would  be  that  the  cause  of  religious 
liberty  in  Roumania  would  be  endangered  rather  than  promoted." 

The  Powers  seem  to  have  been  somewhat  impressed  by  the  force 
of  these  contentions,  but,  nevertheless,  they  still  declined  to  admit 
that  a  revision  of  Article  VII  of  the  Roumanian  constitution  would, 
in  full  measure,  meet  the  requirements  of  Article  XLIV  of  the 
Treaty  of  Berlin. 

It  was  then  that  Roumania,  fearing  the  shipwreck  of  her  hopes 
to  become  an  independent  nation,  gave  the  most  solemn  assurances 
that  if  the  proposed  solution  was  accepted,  it  would  be  made  to 
apply  at  once  to  all  assimilated  Jews,  and  that  the  naturalization 
of  unassimilated  Jews  would  be  provided  for  and  accomplished 
within  a  reasonable  time. 

Sir  William  White  was  told  by  Boeresco,  the  Roumanian  Foreign 
Minister,  "  that  if  the  present  bill  could  only  become  a  law,  a 
more  complete  measure  of  emancipation  would  be  accepted  by  the 
electorate  later  on  when  the  present  agitations  had  subsided." 

But  more  specific  and  emphatic  than  this  were  the  promises 
contained  in  a  circular  dispatch  sent  out  by  Boeresco  under  date 
of  August  31, 1879,  a  document  that  he  himself  described  as  "  a  sort 
of  expose  des  motifs  of  the  measure  we  are  about  to  submit  to  the 
Chambers."  The  essential  passages  of  this  dispatch  are  the 
following: 

Will  the  Jews  who  do  not  immediately  obtain  naturalization 
remain  foreigners?  No;  they  will  remain  what  they  always  have 
been — Roumanian.  But  in  the  measure  that  they  identify  them- 
selves with  the  population  of  the  country,  in  the  measure  that  by 
schools  and  other  means  of  preparation  they  become  enlightened 
men  and  attached  to  the  country,  they  will  be  able  to  obtain  and 
exercise  political  rights. 

******«js:jc 

There  will  be  three  categories  of  Jews — foreigners,  Roumanian 
subjects,  and  citizens.  Hitherto  both  the  foreign  and  native  Jews 
have  been  the  objects  of  certain  prohibitions,  but  in  their  quality 
of  Jew  alone.  From  the  moment  that  article  7  of  the  constitution 
shall  be  suppressed  all  these  prohibitions  will  disappear,  and  no 
distinction  will  be  made  between  the  foreign  Jew  and  the  foreign 
Christian.  It  will  be  the  same  with  the  Jews  who  are  Roumanian 
subjects.  Hitherto  certain  civil  rights  have  been  denied  them. 
Thus  they  could  not  be  advocates,  professors,  State  engineers; 
they  could  not  serve  on  juries,  etc.  Under  the  new  regime  they 
will  have,  in  the  first  place,  all  the  rights  enjoyed  by  foreigners 
in  general.  Then,  as  Roumanian  subjects  they  will  have  the 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  125 

right  of  serving  in  the  army  and  the  national  guard,  the  right 
of  acquiring  real  estate,  the  right  to  be  advocates,  to  serve  on 
juries,  to  exercise  freely  every  profession  and  every  trade;  they 
will,  in  short,  have  the  same  civil  rights  as  Roumanians  and  will 
be  protected  in  the  same  way  by  the  same  law  and  by  the  authori- 
ties. (Official  documents  extracted  from  the  diplomatic  corre- 
spondence of  2/14  September,  1878;  17/29  July,  1880.  Bucharest, 
1880,  pp.  121-123.) 

The  Governments  of  Austria  and  Italy  were  somewhat  inclined 
to  accept  these  assurances,  but  England,  France,  and  Germany  still 
demanded  that  legislative  guaranties  be  given  for  the  faithful 
observance  of  the  Treaty  and  that  this  be  done  within  a  reasonable 
time,  if  not  immediately. 

The  negotiations  between  Boeresco  and  the  Powers  were  still  in 
progress  when  the  Roumanian  Parliament  passed  an  act  revising 
Article  VII  of  the  constitution,  which  was  soon  afterwards  pro- 
mulgated by  the  Prince  in  the  following  terms: 

In  room  of  Article  VII,  which  is  revised,  the  following  shall  be 
placed : 

"ART.  VII.  The  difference  of  religious  creeds  and  confessions 
does  not  constitute  in  Roumania  an  obstacle  to  the  acquirement 
of  civil  and  political  rights  and  their  exercise. 

"  1.  Every  foreigner,  without  distinction  of  creed,  whether  en- 
joying any  foreign  protection  or  not,  can  acquire  naturalization 
under  the  following  conditions: 

"  (a)  By  addressing  to  the  Government  an  application  for 
naturalization,  in  which  must  be  declared  the  capital  he  possesses, 
his  profession,  and  his  wish  to  establish  his  domicile  in  Roumania. 

"  (b)  By  residing  in  the  country  for  10  years  after  having  made 
this  application  and  by  proving  by  his  acts  that  he  is  useful  to  the 
country. 

"  2.  The  following  may  be  exempted  from  this  delay  of  residence 
(10  years) : 

"  (a)  All  who  shall  have  introduced  into  the  country  industries, 
useful  inventions,  or  distinguished  talents,  or  who  shall  have 
founded  large  commercial  or  industrial  establishments. 

"  (b)  All  who  have  been  born  and  educated  in  Roumania  of 
parents  domiciled  in  the  country  and  have,  neither  in  their  own 
case  nor  that  of  their  parents,  at  any  time  been  in  the  enjoyment 
of  any  foreign  protection. 

"  (c)  All  who  have  served  with  the  colors  during  the  war  of 
independence,  and  these  can  be  naturalized  collectively  on  the 
proposition  of  the  Government  by  a  single  law,  without  further 
formalities. 

"  3.  Naturalization  can  only  be  granted  by  a  law,  and  indi- 
vidually. 

"  4.  A  special  law  will  determine  the  manner  in  which  foreigners 
can  establish  their  domicile  on  Roumanian  territory. 

"  5.  Roumanian  and  naturalized  Roumanian  citizens  can  alone 
acquire  rural  estates  in  Roumania. 


126  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

"  Rights  acquired  up  to  the  present  time  are  respected." 

The  international  conventions  existing  at  present  remain  in 
force,  with  all  their  clauses  and  for  the  term  mentioned  therein. 

This  decisive  action  of  the  Parliament  of  Bucharest,  bold  in 
design  and  prompt  in  execution,  seems  to  have  changed  the  notions 
of  the  Powers,  for  they  soon  afterwards  consented,  though  re- 
luctantly, to  the  Roumanian  solution.  But  before  giving  their 
final  consent,  they  required  the  Roumanian  Government  to  make 
a  formal  declaration  of  acceptance  of  the  principle  of  Article  XLIV 
of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  and  of  its  resolution  to  act  upon  it  "  loyally 
and  sincerely."  The  required  obligation  was  expressed  in  the 
following  note: 

Article  7  of  the  Roumanian  constitution,  sanctioning  the  prin- 
ciple of  article  44  of  the  treaty  of  Berlin,  has  opened  to  the  Jews 
access  to  citizenship  and  has  abrogated  all  existing  laws.  That 
principle  will  continue  to  be  observed  sincerely  and  loyally.  The 
organic  powers  will  devote  themselves  to  assuring  its  respect  and 
will  pursue  its  application  with  the  view  of  securing  a  more  com- 
plete assimilation  of  the  Jews Meanwhile  all  Jews  residing 

in  the  country  will  possess,  from  the  point  of  view  of  private  civil 
law,  an  assured  juridical  position,  and  will  have  no  cause  to  fear 
arbitrary  administrative  measures  or  exceptional  laws  aimed  at 
confessions  or  religions.  (Statement  by  Signor  Cairoli  in  the 
Italian  Parliament,  Dec.  9,  1879.) 

Upon  the  receipt  of  this  note  Austria  and  Italy  signified  their 
willingness  to  recognize  the  independence  of  the  new  Kingdom. 

After  considerable  hesitation  Great  Britain,  Prance,  and  Ger- 
many did  the  same,  but  not  before  they  had  made  it  perfectly 
clear  to  the  Roumanian  Government  that  they  were  well  aware 
that  the  conditions  of  the  treaty  of  Berlin  had  not  been  fulfilled 
and  that  they  relied  upon  the  solemn  pledges  of  the  principalities 
"  to  observe  them  in  the  spirit  and  to  execute  them  gradually  in 
the  letter." 

That  there  might  be  a  clear  understanding  of  the  situation  the 
three  last-mentioned  powers  presented  an  identic  note  to  M. 
Boeresco  on  the  20th  of  February,  1880.  The  following  are  the 
essential  paragraphs  of  that  note: 

Her  Majesty's  Government  cannot  consider  the  new  constitu- 
tional provisions  which  have  been  brought  to  their  cognizance — 
and  particularly  those  by  which  persons  belonging  to  a  nonchris- 
tian  creed  domiciled  in  Roumania,  and  not  belonging  to  any  foreign 
nationality,  are  required  to  submit  to  the  formalities  of  individual 
naturalization — as  being  a  complete  fulfillment  of  the  views  of  the 
Powers  signatories  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin. 

Trusting,  however,  to  the  determination  of  the  prince's  Govern- 
ment to  approximate  more  and  more  in  the  execution  of  these  pro- 
visions, to  the  liberal  intentions  entertained  by  the  Powers,  and 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  127 

taking  note  of  the  positive  assurances  to  that  effect  which  have 
been  conveyed  to  them,  the  Government  of  her  Britannic  Majesty, 
being  desirous  of  giving  to  the  Roumanian  Nation  a  proof  of  their 
friendly  sentiments,  have  decided  to  recognize  the  principality  of 
Roumania  as  an  independent  State.  Her  Majesty's  Government 
consequently  declare  themselves  ready  to  enter  into  regular  diplo- 
matic relations  with  the  prince's  Government. 

Such  was  the  result  of  the  diplomatic  negotiations  of  nearly  two 
years  in  which  the  great  Powers  of  Europe  had  again  been  cajoled 
and  hoodwinked  by  a  contemptible  little  Balkan  principality. 
Roumania  had  secured  the  recognition  of  her  sovereignty  and,  in 
return,  had  given  promises  and  pledges  which  the  developments 
of  the  last  30  years  show  she  never  intended  to  fulfil. 

The  Congress  of  Berlin  of  1878  accomplished  nothing  more  in 
fact  than  did  the  Convention  of  Paris  of  1858.  The  illusory 
pledges  of  Prince  Gregory  Ghika  remained  unfulfilled  for  20  years. 
The  promises  of  the  Government  of  King  Charles  have  been 
equally  false  and  hypocritical,  for  more  than  three  decades  have 
passed  and  yet  nothing  has  been  done  to  meet  the  just  expecta- 
tions of  the  Powers.  A  new  generation  of  Roumanian  Jews  have 
been  born  in  the  land,  and  yet  they  are  as  far  from  emancipation 
as  were  their  fathers.  The  night  of  oppression  and  persecution 
still  hovers  over  them  and  the  day  of  freedom  and  regeneration 
still  seems  far  away.  They  are  still  held  to  be  aliens  and  outcasts 
in  the  land  of  their  birth;  naturalization  is  still  practically  in- 
accessible to  them;  and  the  sufferings  of  persecution  are  still  as 
great  and  painful  as  ever. 

Roumanian  statesmanship  triumphed  in  the  matter  of  the  com- 
promise of  1880,  not  by  honest  methods  of  skillful  diplomacy,  but 
by  craft  and  cunning  and  through  the  negligence  of  the  Powers 
themselves. 

It  was  a  regrettable  mistake  that  the  Governments  of  Europe 
should  have  overlooked  two  fatal  defects  in  the  compromise.  In 
the  first  place  they  should  by  all  means  have  forced  from  the 
Roumanian  Parliament  a  legislative  acknowledgment  that  Jews 
"  belonging  to  no  other  nationality  and  enjoying  no  foreign  pro- 
tection were  Roumanian  nationals  in  the  sense  of  article  46  of  the 
convention  of  Paris  and  of  the  admission  of  M.  Boeresco  in  his 
dispatch  of  August  31,  1879." 

Again  the  Roumanian  Parliament  consists  of  two  chambers. 
All  naturalization  bills  are  individual  and  must  pass  each  chamber 
by  a  two-thirds  majority.  Paragraph  3  of  the  revised  Article  VII 
of  the  constitution  left  Jewish  petitions  for  naturalization  at  the 
absolute  mercy  of  the  Parliament.  This  was  the  second  fatal 


128  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

defect  of  the  compromise  which  should  not  have  been  overlooked 
by  the  Powers. 

These  defects  are  all  the  more  to  be  lamented  because  they 
furnish  loopholes  of  escape  to  Roumania  in  the  matter  of  keeping 
her  naturalization  pledges  under  the  Treaty.  They  gave  ground 
for  the  practice  of  rank  hypocrisy,  and  at  the  same  time  for  a 
plea  of  seeming  justification  in  terms  of  law. 

The  unfortunate  result  has  been  that  in  the  matter  of  naturaliza- 
tion, so  far  from  keeping  her  pledges,  Roumania  has  almost  com- 
pletely ignored  them,  for  the  Roumanian  chambers  have  in  nearly 
every  case  refused  to  pass  bills  intended  to  confer  citizenship  upon 
the  Jews.  Since  1880,  the  date  of  the  recognition  of  the  new  King- 
dom, only  176  Jews  have  been  naturalized  out  of  a  total  population 
of  100,000  adult  males,  the  greater  part  of  whom  are  natives,  and 
many  thousands  of  whom  have  bravely  and  patriotically  per- 
formed military  service  for  the  Roumanian  fatherland. 

When  arraigned  at  the  bar  of  the  nations  and  charged  with  bad 
faith  in  the  matter  of  broken  pledges,  the  defense  of  Roumania 
is  at  once  astonishingly  simple  and  amazingly  cynical.  She  simply 
revives  her  ancient  argument  that  the  Jews  are  now  and  have 
always  been  strangers  and  aliens  in  the  land,  and  that  the  Treaties 
of  1858  and  1878,  under  strict  interpretation,  did  not  alter  their 
status.  When  pointed  to  the  formal  and  categorical  pledges  of 
1880,  and  the  admission  of  M.  Boeresco  in  1879,  which  directly 
contradicted  and  repudiated  her  contentions  in  this  regard,  and, 
moreover,  when  reminded  that  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Ger- 
many had  recognized  her  independence  only  after  she  had  spe- 
cifically and  emphatically  renounced  such  a  theory,  she  simply 
points  to  the  equivocal  revision  of  Article  VII  of  her  constitution, 
which  Europe  had  accepted  under  pressure  and  protest,  and  de- 
clares that  she  is  bound  by  that  alone. 

Strange  to  say,  no  attempt  is  ever  made  by  Roumania  to  con- 
ceal the  hypocrisy  or  to  hide  the  bad  faith  of  her  astonishing 
defense.  Indeed,  eminent  writers  of  Roumania  have  frequently 
boasted  of  the  trick  which  was  successfully  played  on  Europe. 
One  of  these,  M.  Suliotis,  writes  in  this  manner: 

The  Treaty  of  Berlin  was  thought  to  work  wonders  in  favor  of 
the  strangers,  but  Roumania  has  been  wise  enough  to  escape  the 
inconveniences  which  might  have  resulted  from  the  application 
of  article  7  in  the  sense  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  which  has  had  no 
other  effect  than  to  render  more  difficult  the  situation  of  the  aliens. 

Again,  writing  in  the  Romanul  of  December  25,  1881,  M.  Rosetti, 
an  ex-minister  and  one  of  the  leading  statesmen  of  the  Kingdom, 
has  this  to  say: 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  129 

We  may  congratulate  ourselves  to-day  on  having  solved  the 
Jewish  question  in  a  national  sense,  and  that — we  may  now  avow 
loudly — contrary  to  the  manifest  will  of  the  Powers  and  even  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin. 

The  solution  of  "  the  Jewish  question  "  in  "  a  national  sense." 
it  will  be  readily  seen,  was  by  the  simple  method  of  having  the 
Roumanian  Parliament  pass  laws  antagonistic  to  "  strangers,"  and 
then  have  all  public  officials  of  Roumania  regard  the  Jews  as 
"  strangers,"  in  the  application  of  those  laws. 

Nothing  can  better  illustrate  the  determined  efforts  of  the  Rou- 
manian Government  to  evade  its  pledges  in  the  matter  of  the 
Treaty  of  Berlin  than  its  systematic  legislation  against 
"  strangers,"  which  was,  in  fact,  intended  to  apply  only  to  the 
Jews.  The  following  classified  list  of  laws,  discriminating  against 
the  Jews,  will  prove  conclusively  that  Roumania,  from  the  very 
beginning,  never  had  any  intention  of  fulfilling  her  obligations 
under  Article  XLIV  of  that  Treaty: 

October  21,  1879.  Roumanian  Senate  passes  law  stating  that  dis- 
tinction of  religion  shall  not  be  a  bar  to  civil  or  political  rights, 
but  that  "  strangers  "  may  obtain  naturalization  only  by  special 
law  on  individual  demand  and  after  10  years'  residence.  (Art.  VII 
of  constitution;  Sincerus,  pp.  3-4.) 

June  6,  1880.  The  directors  and  auditors  of  the  National  Bank 
of  Roumania  must  be  Roumanians.  (Sincerus,  p.  77.) 

March  18,  1881.  Law  of  expulsion  passed,  authorizing  minister 
of  interior  to  expel  or  order  from  place  to  place,  without  giving 
reason,  any  "  stranger  "  likely  to  disturb  public  tranquility.  (Sin- 
cerus, p.  146.)  (Originally  intended  against  Nihilists  after  mur- 
der of  Czar,  but  afterwards  applied  to  Jews. ) 

July  16,  1881.  Law  promulgated  declaring  that  all  "  agents  de 
change  "  or  "  courtiers  de  merchandise  "  must  be  Roumanians  or 
naturalized,  except  in  the  ports  (where  there  are  Christian 
"strangers").  (Sincerus,  p.  45.) 

October  21,  1881.  Ministerial  council  extends  the  law  excluding 
Jews  from  the  sale  of  liquors  in  rural  districts  to  cities  and  towns 
included  in  such  districts.  (Sincerus,  pp.  22-23.) 

November  11,  1881.  All  "strangers  "  in  Roumania  required  to 
obtain  a  permit  of  residence  before  they  may  pass  from  place  to 
place.  (Sincerus,  p.  163.) 

February  26,  1882.  Jews  forbidden  to  be  custom-house  officers 
(Sincerus,  p.  53.) 

November  3,  1882.  Roumanian  Senate  passes  law  declaring  all 
"  inhabitants  "  liable  to  military  service,  except  subjects  of  alien 
States.  (Sincerus,  p.  35.)  See  above,  June  23,  1868. 

January  31,  1884.  Roumanian  Senate  decides  that  "  strangers  " 
have  no  right  of  petition  to  Parliament.  (Sincerus,  p.  197.) 

March  19,  1884.  Law  passes  prohibiting  hawkers  from  trading 
in  rural  districts.  (Sincerus,  p.  65.) 

April  15,  1885.  Pharmacy  law  permits  minister  of  interior  to 
close  any  pharmacy  not  under  direction  of  a  recognized  person; 

10 


130  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

pharmacies  may  be  acquired  only  by  Roumanians  or  by  naturalized 
citizens;  permission  to  employ  "strangers"  extended  to  1886. 
(Sincerus,  p.  104.) 

March  13,  1886.  Electors  of  chambers  of  commerce  must  be 
persons  having  political  rights.  (Sincerus,  p.  75.) 

June  16,  1886.  Druggists  must  be  Roumanians  or  naturalized 
citizens.  (Sincerus,  p.  84.) 

December  7,  1886.  Account  books  must  be  kept  in  Roumanian  or 
in  a  modern  European  language.  (Sincerus,  p.  81.)  (The  object 
was  to  keep  out  Yiddish.) 

February  28,  1887.  All  employees  of  the  "  regie  "  must  be  Rou- 
manians or  naturalized.  (Sincerus,  p.  29.) 

April  28,  1887.  Farmers  of  taxes  in  Roumania  must  be  persons 
capable  of  being  public  officers.  (Sincerus,  p.  89.) 

May  22,  1887.  Majority  of  administrators  of  private  companies 
must  be  Roumanians.  (Sincerus,  p.  78.) 

May  24,  1887.  Five  years  after  the  foundation  of  a  factory  two- 
thirds  of  its  workmen  must  be  Roumanians.  (Sincerus,  p.  94.) 

August  4,  1887.  Ministerial  circular  orders  preference  to  be 
given  to  children  of  Roumanians  in  the  order  of  admission  to 
public  schools.  (Sincerus,  p.  123.) 

1889.  Of  1,307  permits  issued  to  hawkers,  only  123  went  to 
Jews;  of  these,  only  6  were  held  in  Wallachia.  (Sincerus,  p.  70.) 

August  31,  1892.  Retired  Jewish  soldiers  are  not  allowed  to 
serve  as  rural  gendarmes.  (Sincerus,  p.  40.) 

April  21,  1893.  Professional  education  permitted  to  "  strangers  " 
only  when  places  are  available  and  on  payment  of  fees.  The  num- 
ber of  "  strangers  "  on  the  roll  of  such  an  educational  institution 
must  not  exceed  one-fifth  of  the  total  roll,  and  these  may  not  com- 
pete for  scholarships.  "  Strangers "  are  not  admitted  at  all  to 
schools  of  agriculture.  (Sincerus,  p.  138.) 

May  20,  1893.  Roumanian  Senate  passes  law  giving  preference 
to  children  of  Roumanians  in  elementary  public  schools  and  plac- 
ing a  tax  on  children  of  "  strangers  "  admitted.  (Sincerus,  p.  129.) 
This  tax  amounted  to  15  francs  for  rural  and  30  francs  for  urban 
schools.  (/&.,  127.) 

June  26,  1893.  Royal  decree  declaring  all  functionaries  in  the 
sanitary  service  must  be  Roumanians  except  in  rural  districts. 
"  Stranger  "  invalids  may  be  admitted  to  free  public  hospital  only 
on  payment  of  fees,  and  they  may  not  in  any  case  occupy  more 
than  10  per  cent  of  the  beds.  A  "  stranger  "  may  be  taken  as  an 
apprentice  by  an  apothecary  only  where  there  is  a  Roumanian 
apprentice.  (Sincerus,  pp.  106,  110,  115.) 

January  26,  1894.  Farmers  may  be  represented  in  law  courts  by 
their  stewards  if  the  latter  be  Roumanians,  not  Jews.  (Sincerus, 
p.  44.) 

May  22,  1895.  Students  in  the  military  hospitals  and  army 
doctors  must  be  either  Roumanians  or  naturalized  citizens.  (Sin- 
cerus, p.  117.) 

April  13,  1896.  Jews  may  not  act  as  intermediaries  at  the  cus- 
toms in  Roumania.  (Sincerus,  p.  54.) 

June,  1896.  A  ministerial  order  declares  that  letters  on  school 
business — excuses  for  absence,  etc. — need  not  be  stamped  except  in 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  131 

the  case  of  "strangers";  only  children  of  "strangers"  are  re- 
quired to  pay  entrance  fees  at  examinations.  (Sincerus,  p.  130.) 

June  26,  1896.  Ministerial  order  instructs  rural  council  that 
permission  to  remain  in  a  rural  district  may  be  revoked  at  any 
moment.  (Sincerus.  p.  185.) 

April  4,  1898.  Law  permitting  secondary  instruction  of  children 
of  "  strangers  "  only  where  places  are  available  and  on  payment 
of  fees,  though  to  Roumanians  tuition  is  free.  (Sincerus,  p.  133.) 

October,  1898.  Admission  to  public  schools  in  Roumania  re- 
fused to  11,200  Jewish  children.  (Sincerus.) 

February  18,  1899.  Only  Roumanians  henceforth  admitted  as 
employees  on  State  railways.  (Sincerus,  p.  97.) 

October  21,  1899.  Ministerial  order  closes  private  Jewish  schools 
in  Roumania  on  Sundays.  (Sincerus,  p.  141.) 

1900.  Number  of  Jewish  children  in  elementary  public  schools 
in  Roumania  reduced  to  5^  per  cent;  in  secondary  schools,  from 
lOMj  per  cent  (in  1895)  to  7%  per  cent.  (Sincerus,  p.  133.) 

February  27,  1900.  Ministerial  circular  orders  pupils  to  receive 
instructions  in  Jewish  private  schools  with  heads  uncovered. 
(Sincerus,  p.  143.) 

March  28,  1900.  On  private  railways  60  per  cent  of  the  em- 
ployees must  be  Roumanians.  (Sincerus,  p.  99.) 

April  17,  1900.  Ministerial  circular  orders  Jewish  private 
schools  to  open  on  Saturdays.  (Sincerus,  p.  142.) 

March  16,  1902.  Artisans'  bill  requires  special  authorization 
from  the  authorities  to  carry  on  any  trade,  only  to  be  obtained  by 
"  strangers  " — i.  e.,  Jews — on  production  of  foreign  passports,  and 
proof  that  in  their  "  respective  countries  "  reciprocal  rights  are 
accorded  to  Roumanians.  (American  Jewish  Year  Book,  1902-3, 
p.  30.) 

The  culmination  of  Roumanian  meanness  ana  malignity  was 
reached  in  the  passage  of  the  artisans'  bill.  Other  measures  had 
been  designed  to  cripple  and  harass,  to  degrade  and  humiliate 
them,  but  this  bill  was  evidently  intended  to  starve  the  Jews  to 
death,  for  it  inevitably  deprived  many  thousands  of  Jewish  artisans 
of  the  only  means  of  earning  their  daily  bread.  The  ludicrous  ab- 
surdity as  well  as  the  fiendish  cruelty  of  such  a  law  are  shown  by 
the  fact  that,  under  its  provisions,  no  "  foreigner  "  was  permitted 
to  exercise  a  handicraft  in  Roumania  unless  "  he  could  show  reci- 
procity for  Roumanians  in  his  own  country."  The  Jews  being 
"  foreigners  not  under  any  foreign  protection  "  were  unable  to 
prove  this  reciprocity.  They  were  therefore  unable  to  carry  on  any 
trade  without  violating  the  law. 

Another  characteristic  illustration  of  the  ingenious  method  em- 
ployed by  the  Roumanian  Parliament  in  framing  laws  to  evade 
the  spirit,  if  not  the  letter,  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  is  afforded  by 
the  military  law  of  November  3,  1882.  By  Article  I  of  this  law 
"  all  the  inhabitants  "  of  the  country  are  liable  to  military  service. 


132  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

By  Article  II  "  subjects  of  foreign  States  "  are  declared  ineligible 
for  entrance  into  the  army.  The  Jews  being  "  inhabitants  "  of  the 
country,  but  not  "  subjects  of  foreign  States,"  are  required  to  per- 
form military  service,  although  deprived  of  all  civil  and  political 
rights,  because  of  their  status  as  "strangers."  Although  forced 
to  risk  the  dangers  and  bear  the  burdens  of  war  as  privates  in  the 
ranks  they  are  denied  promotion  on  the  ground  that  "  service  in 
the  army  is  a  duty,  while  the  rank  of  officer  is  a  public  function 
reserved  for  Roumanian  citizens."  These  distinctions  and  the 
reasons  for  them  were  all  solemnly  declared  in  a  speech  by  M. 
Bratiano  in  the  Roumanian  Senate  May  27,  1882.  But  it  is  need- 
less to  elaborate  the  question  at  greater  length. 

The  hideous  result  of  long  years  of  persecution  and  oppression, 
of  riot  and  massacre,  has  been  that  the  Jews  of  Roumania  have 
been  barbarized  and  impoverished  and  that  life  for  most  of  them 
has  been  rendered  an  intolerable  burden.  Within  the  last  10  years 
60,000  of  them  have  been  forced  to  emigrate  and  100,000  others 
have  been  reduced  to  a  state  approaching  vagabondage. 

Shall  these  frightful  conditions  continue  to  exist?  Shall  the 
barbarous  practices  of  a  semicivilized  people  forever  violate  the 
precepts  and  shock  the  sentiments  of  civilization?  Shall  Article 
XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  become  as  dead  a  letter  upon  the 
statute  books  of  nations  as  did  Article  XLVI  of  the  Conference 
of  Paris?  What  says  old  England,  the  land  of  Magna  Charta, 
of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  the  petition  of  rights,  and  habeas  corpus, 
the  birthplace  of  Hampden,  Pym,  and  Cromwell,  the  grandest 
and  most  majestic  among  the  commonwealths  of  the  earth?  What 
says  she,  a  party  to  the  Treaty  of  Berlin?  Shall  the  mighty  power 
that  conquered  Napoleon  and  preserved  the  liberties  of  Europe 
be  forever  defied  and  mocked  by  a  petty  and  contemptible  little 
Balkan  State?  What  says  France,  the  brilliant  and  beautiful 
among  the  nations,  whose  chivalric  sympathies  sent  Rochambeau 
and  Lafayette  as  ambassadors  of  freedom  to  our  shores?  What 
says  she,  a  party  to  the  Treaty  of  Berlin?  Shall  the  bad  faith  and 
insolence  of  Roumania  go  forever  unpunished  and  unrebuked 
while  France,  the  dauntless  and  eternal  champion  of  the  rights 
of  man,  stands  mute  and  motionless?  And  last,  but  not  least, 
what  says  America,  the  country  of  Washington,  the  Republic  of 
Jefferson,  the  Union  of  Lincoln,  whose  Goddess  of  Liberty  in  the 
harbor  of  New  York  brandishes  forever  a  torch  of  freedom  as  a 
beacon  light  to  the  oppressed  and  distressed  of  all  the  world? 
What  says  America,  the  protagonist  of  republican  virtue  and  the 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  133 

model  of  newborn  republics  throughout  the  earth?  Shall  she  give 
no  response  and  make  no  protest  when  a  suffering  and  helpless 
people  ask  for  sympathy  and  aid? 

But  it  is  contended  that  America  was  no  party  to  the  Treaty 
of  Berlin  and  that  it  would  be  improper  therefore  for  her  to  seek 
to  interfere  in  the  local  affairs  of  Roumania.  There  is  a  grain  of 
truth  in  this  contention,  but  only  a  grain.  The  fatal  defect  in 
the  argument  is  that  the  barbarous  persecution  and  merciless 
oppression  of  any  race  within  the  borders  of  any  country  causing 
wholesale  emigration  of  the  members  of  that  race  to  other  countries 
as  a  means  of  preserving  life  are  not  the  internal  affairs  of  the  state 
guilty  of  the  persecution  and  oppression  with  which  other  countries 
have  no  concern  and  in  which  they  should  not  interfere.  Such  a 
contention  wrongfully  assumes  that  the  intercessory  and  inter- 
vening powers  of  civilized  nations  are  suspended  and  paralyzed 
when  the  laws  of  humanity  and  the  rights  of  races  happen  to  con- 
flict with  the  local  arrangements  of  some  small  despotic  gov- 
ernment. 

Whether  rightfully  or  wrongfully,  America  has  already  pro- 
tested, in  vigorous  and  solemn  terms,  against  Roumanian  oppres- 
sion of  the  Jews;  and  this  protest  was  not  born  of  the  hurry  and 
heat  of  a  political  convention  or  of  any  other  voluntary  associa- 
tion of  irresponsible  persons.  It  was  a  calm  and  deliberate  act  of 
American  diplomacy,  the  product  of  one  of  the  noblest  and  finest 
of  American  intellects. 

Following  the  passage  of  the  artisans'  bill  of  March  16,  1902, 
which  was  designed  to  prevent  the  Jews  from  earning  a  livelihood 
by  any  form  of  handicraft  or  trade,  Mr.  Secretary  Hay,  on  August 
11,  1902,  addressed  a  ministerial  note  of  protest  to  the  Roumanian 
Government,  pointing  out  the  tendency  of  such  legislation  to  pro- 
duce an  abnormal  stream  of  emigration  to  the  United  States.  The 
following  is  the  essential  passage  of  that  note: 

The  teachings  of  history  and  the  experience  of  our  own  Nation 
show  that  the  Jews  possess  in  a  high  degree  the  mental  and  moral 
qualifications  of  conscientious  citizenhood.  No  class  of  immi- 
grants is  more  welcome  to  our  shores  when  coming  equipped  in 
mind  and  body  for  entrance  upon  the  struggle  for  bread  and 
inspired  with  the  high  purpose  to  give  the  best  service  of  heart 
and  brain  to  the  land  they  adopt  of  their  own  free  will;  but  when 
they  come  as  outcasts,  made  doubly  paupers  by  physical  and  moral 
oppression  in  their  native  land  and  thrown  upon  the  long-suffering 
generosity  of  a  more  favored  community,  their  migration  lacks 
the  essential  conditions  which  make  alien  immigration  either 
acceptable  or  beneficial.  So  well  is  this  appreciated  on  the  Conti- 


134  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

nent  that  even  in  the  countries  where  anti-Semitism  has  no  foot- 
hold it  is  difficult  for  these  fleeing  Jews  to  obtain  any  lodgment. 
America  is  their  only  goal. 

The  United  States  offers  asylum  to  the  oppressed  of  all  lands, 
but  its  sympathy  with  them  in  no  wise  impairs  its  just  liberty  and 
right  to  weigh  the  acts  of  the  oppressor  in  the  light  of  their  effects 
upon  this  country  and  to  judge  accordingly. 

Putting  together  the  facts  now  plainly  brought  home  to  this 
Government  during  the  past  few  years,  that  many  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Roumania  are  being  forced  by  artificially  adverse  dis- 
criminations to  quit  their  native  country,  that  the  hospitable 
asylum  offered  by  this  country  is  almost  the  only  refuge  left  to 
them,  that  they  come  hither  unfitted  by  the  conditions  of  their 
exile  to  take  part  in  the  new  life  of  this  land  under  circumstances 
either  profitable  to  themselves  or  beneficial  to  the  community,  and 
that  they  are  objects  of  charity  from  the  outset  and  for  a  long  time, 
the  right  of  remonstrance  against  the  acts  of  the  Roumanian  Gov- 
ernment is  clearly  established  in  favor  of  this  Government. 
Whether  consciously  and  of  purpose  or  not,  these  helpless  people, 
burdened  and  spurned  by  their  native  land,  are  forced  by  the 
sovereign  power  of  Roumania  upon  the  charity  of  the  United 
States.  This  Government  cannot  be  a  tacit  party  to  such  an 
international  wrong.  It  is  constrained  to  protest  against  the  treat- 
ment to  which  the  Jews  of  Roumania  are  subjected,  not  alone 
because  it  has  unimpeachable  ground  to  remonstrate  against  the 
resultant  injury  to  itself,  but  in  the  name  of  humanity.  The 
United  States  may  not  authoritatively  appeal  to  the  stipulations 
of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  to  which  it  was  not  and  cannot  become  a 
signatory,  but  it  does  earnestly  appeal  to  the  principles  consigned 
therein  because  they  are  the  principles  of  international  law  and 
eternal  justice,  advocating  the  broad  toleration  which  that  solemn 
compact  enjoins  and  standing  ready  to  lend  its  moral  support  to 
the  fulfillment  thereof  by  its  cosignatories,  for  the  act  of  Rou- 
mania itself  has  effectively  joined  the  United  States  to  them  as 
an  interested  party  in  this  regard. 

It  might  be  well  to  add  that  a  copy  of  this  note  of  Mr.  Hay, 
American  Secretary  of  State,  to  the  Government  of  Roumania  was 
simultaneously  sent  to  the  Governments  of  Great  Britain,  France, 
Germany,  Italy,  Russia,  and  Turkey,  the  signatory  Powers  of  the 
Treaty  of  Berlin.  By  this  act  the  United  States  served  notice  upon 
Roumania  and  upon  the  great  powers  of  Europe  that  she  considered 
herself  a  party  to  that  Treaty,  if  not  by  direct  signature,  then  at 
least  by  the  laws  of  humanity,  by  the  principles  of  eternal  justice, 
by  the  binding  obligations  of  international  law  in  which  all 
civilized  peoples  have  a  common  interest,  and  by  the  right  of  self- 
preservation  involved  in  the  necessity  of  protecting  her  own  popu- 
lation and  her  own  civilization  against  the  barbarized  and  im- 
poverished victims  of  Roumanian  persecution. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  135 

This  authoritative  action  of  our  State  Department  some  10  years 
ago  is  still  a  landmark  and  a  precedent.  No  one  will  question  the 
righteousness  of  the  motive  or  the  soundness  of  the  political 
principle  involved  in  this  action.  No  one  can  effectively  contend 
that  this  diplomatic  step  should  not  have  been  taken.  The  only 
regret  that  can  be  expressed  is  that  the  results  accomplished  were 
not  greater. 

Historical  considerations  affecting  the  discussion  of  the  present 
question  are  these:  A  great  Balkan  war  has  just  been  terminated. 
Roumania  was  involved  indirectly  in  the  struggle.  Changes  in 
territory,  similar  to  those  brought  about  at  the  close  of  the  Russo- 
Turkish  War  of  1877-78,  will  probably  be  made.  The  Roumanians, 
it  is  said,  contemplate  revising  their  present  constitution  in  view 
of  changed  conditions.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  the  great 
Powers  of  Europe  will  again  be  called  upon  to  adjust,  in  inter- 
national conference,  various  questions  growing  out  of  the  recent 
war. 

Now,  after  the  lapse  of  10  years,  Roumanian  persecution  of  the 
Jews  exists  in  more  acute  and  malignant  form  than  when  Mr. 
Hay  dispatched  his  note  of  diplomatic  protest.  Roumanian  laws 
against  the  Jews  have  become  more  stringent  and  oppressive. 
Social  discrimination  and  ostracism  have  become  more  pitiless  and 
humiliating.  Riot  and  massacre  are  still  as  imminent  as  ever. 

In  view  of  the  approaching  conference  of  the  Powers,  what  shall 
be  done,  what  can  be  done  to  compel  Roumania  to  act  justly  and 
humanely  by  the  Jews  within  her  borders?  The  Powers  will  have 
no  difficulty,  in  the  matter  of  the  Jews,  with  any  other  Balkan 
State.  At  the  same  time  and  in  exactly  the  same  language  as  that 
employed  in  the  case  of  Roumania,  Servia  and  Montenegro  prom- 
ised the  Congress  of  Berlin  to  guarantee  civil  and  religious  freedom 
to  the  Jews  within  their  territories  in  consideration  of  the  recog- 
nition of  their  independence.  Both  Servia  and  Montenegro  have 
faithfully  kept  these  pledges,  which  demonstrates  conclusively 
that  there  was  no  inherent  difficulty,  no  insuperable  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  Roumania's  doing  the  same  thing. 

My  own  opinion  is  that  the  United  States  should  accept  the 
invitation  of  the  European  Powers  to  become  a  member  of  the 
approaching  international  congress,  if  such  an  invitation  is  ex- 
tended. I  have  been  reliably  informed  that  our  Government  was 
invited  to  participate  in  the  proceedings  of  {he  Berlin  Congress, 
but  declined.  If  we  are  not  invited  we  should  ask  that  the  United 
States  be  permitted  to  be  a  party  to  the  next  conference  of  the 


136  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Powers.  We  should  then  join  with  other  nations  in  reminding 
Roumania  of  existing  obligations,  and  in  imposing  fresh  ones 
upon  her  in  a  manner  that  will  preclude  any  possibility  of  vio- 
lating them  in  the  future.  If  no  new  conference  of  the  Powers  is 
called,  or  if  the  United  States  for  any  reason  should  not  be  a  party 
to  it,  if  one  is  called,  then  let  us  again,  and  repeatedly  if  need  be, 
in  the  language  of  Mr.  Hay,  lend  our  "moral  support"  to  the 
great  cause  of  civil  liberty  and  religious  emancipation,  by  such 
representations  to  the  great  Governments  of  Europe  as  will  secure 
prompt  and  vigorous  action  on  their  part,  in  compelling  Roumania, 
even  at  this  late  date,  to  perform  her  pledges  under  Article  XLVI 
of  the  Conference  of  Paris  and  Article  XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin. 
If  her  sense  of  national  honor  and  international  obligation  does 
not  incline  Roumania  to  deeds  of  justice  and  righteousness,  then 
let  the  strong  arm  of  force  be  used  and  the  wrath  of  the  nations 
be  visited  upon  her. 

But  why  should  we  do  all  these  things  for  the  Jews,  you  ask? 
The  reply  is  that  these  things  are  not  to  be  done  primarily  for 
the  Jews.  They  are  to  be  done  to  promote  and  maintain  civil 
liberty  and  religious  freedom  among  men;  to  prevent  offenses 
against  international  morality  and  to  uphold  the  dignity  and 
sanctity  of  international  law;  and,  above  all  things,  to  compel 
respect  for  the  laws  of  humanity  and  regard  for  the  principles 
of  eternal  justice.  These  are  the  primary  objects  of  action  to  be 
taken  against  Roumania. 

But  if  you  challenge  me  to  open  declaration  I  will  candidly  say 
to  you  that  I  am  in  favor  of  doing  all  manner  of  good  things  at 
all  times  for  the  Jews  simply  because  they  are  Jews.  And  in  this 
declaration  is  no  sickly  sentimentality,  no  maudlin  sentiment.  I 
am  well  aware  that  the  Jewish  race  is  not  a  perfect  one.  The  Jews, 
along  with  all  the  balance  of  us,  have  inherited  the  curse  of  Eden. 
The  stamp  of  sin  is  upon  the  Jewish  as  well  as  upon  the  gentile 
brow.  From  the  records  of  the  courts  we  gather  that  there  are 
Jewish  as  well  as  Christian  criminals.  And  undoubtedly  the  sons 
of  Abraham  are  afflicted  at  times  with  all  the  faults  and  frailties 
to  which  human  flesh  is  heir. 

And,  again,  it  should  be  cheerfully  admitted  that  individual 
Jews  are  not  entitled  to  receive  and  should  not  receive  any  par- 
ticular consideration,  any  special  clemency  in  the  exigencies  and 
crises  of  life.  If  Jews  steal,  they  should  be  sent  to  prison  along 
with  gentile  thieves.  If  they  murder,  the  death  penalty  should 
be  administered  to  them  as  in  the  case  of  others.  If  Jews  are 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  137 

physically,  mentally,  or  morally  unclean,  they  should  be  socially 
ostracized  and  banished,  as  should  gentiles  who  are  similarly 
afflicted.  If  Jews  are  guilty  of  unpardoned  sins  against  the  laws 
of  God,  they  should  be  consigned  to  the  same  place  and  for  the 
same  length  of  time  in  the  hereafter  as  in  the  case  of  gentile 
sinners.  These  statements  and  concessions  I  gladly  and  cheerfully 
make.  But  having  said  these  things,  I  must  be  permitted  to  repeat 
the  declaration  that  where  the  Jewish  race  as  such  is  concerned 
and  its  rights  are  involved  in  terms  of  religious  persecution,  all 
doubts  should  be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  Jews. 

The  marvelous  contributions  of  the  Jewish  people  to  the  spiritual 
and  intellectual  wealth  of  the  world  entitle  them  to  the  gratitude 
and  homage,  not  the  hatred  and  persecution  of  mankind.  If  grati- 
tude were  a  supreme  virtue  of  nations,  as  it  should  be  of  indi- 
viduals, there  would  never  be  any  organized  governmental  perse- 
cution of  the  Jews.  The  civilized  nations  of  this  earth  are  too 
deeply  and  everlastingly  indebted  to  the  Jews  to  be  able  ever  to 
cancel  the  obligation.  They  should  at  least  treat  them  with 
humanity  and  accord  them  those  considerations  which  are  the 
absolute  essentials  of  happiness  in  a  civilized  state 


APPENDIX  VI. 
MEMORANDUM  ON  THE  TREATY  RIGHTS  OF  THE  JEWS  OF  ROUMANIA. 

Presented  to  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  Edward  Grey,  Bart.,  M.  P.,  etc., 
H.  M.  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  by  the 
London  Committee  of  Deputies  of  the  British  Jews  and  the 
Council  of  the  Anglo-Jewish  Association,  in  November,  1908. 

The  London  Committee  of  Deputies  of  British  Jews  (represent- 
ing the  several  Jewish  Congregations  in  the  British  Empire)  and 
the  Council  of  the  Anglo-Jewish  Association  (on  its  own  behalf 
and  on  behalf  of  its  Branches  throughout  the  British  Empire)  de- 
sire to  bring  to  the  notice  of  His  Majesty's  Principal  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs  the  oppressive  disabilities  under  which 
their  coreligionists  of  the  Kingdom  of  Roumania  labour,  in  vio- 
lation of  Article  XLVI  of  the  Convention  of  Paris  of  19th  August, 
1858,  and  of  Article  XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  of  13th  July, 
1878.  They  further  beg  that  these  disabilities  may  be  submitted 
to  the  judgment  of  the  Conference  of  the  Powers,  which  it  is 
understood  will  shortly  be  summoned  to  deliberate  upon  other 
infractions  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin.  They  make  this  appeal  on 
grounds  of  humanity  and  public  law,  and  in  the  confidence  that 


138  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

the  Powers  will  welcome  this  opportunity  of  vindicating  the 
great  act  of  religious  emancipation  to  which  they  set  their  signa- 
tures thirty  years  ago,  and  which  the  Kingdom  of  Roumania,  alone 
of  the  states  of  the  Near  East,  has  refused  to  obey. 

THE  CONVENTION  OF  PARIS  (1858). 

The  oppression  of  the  Jews  of  Roumania,  who  now  number 
more  than  200,000  souls,  first  attracted  the  serious  attention  of  the 
Great  Powers  at  the  close  of  the  Crimean  War.  In  connection  with 
the  measures  then  adopted  for  the  organization  of  the  autonomy 
of  the  Principalities  of  Moldavia  and  Wallachia,  "  under  the 
suzerainty  of  the  Porte  and  the  guarantee  of  the  Contracting 
Powers,"  steps  were  taken  to  relieve  the  Jews  of  their  legal  disa- 
bilities. These  were  embodied  in  Article  XLVI  of  the  Convention 
of  Paris,  which  runs  as  follows: 

All  Moldavians  and  Wallachians  shall  be  equal  in  the  eye  of  the 
law  and  with  regard  to  taxation,  and  shall  be  equally  admissible 
to  public  employments  in  both  Principalities. 

Their  individual  liberty  shall  be  guaranteed.  No  one  can  be 
detained,  arrested,  or  prosecuted  but  in  conformity  with  the  law. 
No  one  can  be  deprived  of  his  property  unless  legally  for  causes 
of  public  interest  and  on  payment  of  indemnification. 

Moldavians  and  Wallachians  of  all  Christian  confessions  shall 
equally  enjoy  political  rights.  The  enjoyment  of  these  rights  may 
be  extended  to  other  religions  by  legislative  arrangements. 

It  is  important  to  observe  that  while  this  Article  left  to  the 
Principalities  a  discretion  in  regard  to  the  complete  emancipation 
of  their  non-Christian  nationals,  it  distinctly  recognised  the 
existence  of  such  nationals — "  Moldavians  and  Wallachians  of 
....  other  religions  " — and  accorded  them  civil  rights.  This 
is  borne  out  by  the  Protocols  of  the  Paris  and  Constantinople 
Conferences,  and  by  the  correspondence  on  the  subject  with  the 
Prince  of  Moldavia,  to  be  referred  to  presently.  The  discretion 
in  regard  to  political  rights  was,  however,  not  quite  absolute,  but 
was  the  result  of  a  compromise,  in  which  the  Powers  were  led  to 
believe  that  it  would  be  exercised  in  an  affirmative  sense.  Origin- 
ally it  was  intended  to  impose  much  more  exacting  terms,  as  is 
shown  by  the  following  Articles  of  the  Protocol  of  the  Conference 
of  Constantinople  of  llth  February,  1856,  which  prepared  the 
bases  of  the  Paris  Convention: 

XIII.  All  the  religions  and  those  who  profess  them  shall  enjoy 
equal  liberty  and  equal  protection  in  the  two  Principalities. 

XV.  Foreigners  may  possess  landed  property  in  Moldavia  and 
Wallachia  on  discharging  the  same  liabilities  as  natives  and  on 
submitting  to  the  laws. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  139 

XVI.  All  Moldavians  and  Wallachians,  without  exception,  shall 
be  admissible  to  public  employments. 

XVIII.  All  classes  of  the  population,  without  any  distinction 
of  birth  or  religion,  shall  enjoy  equality  of  civil  rights,  and  par- 
ticularly of  the  right  of  property,  in  every  shape;  but  the  exercise 
of  political  rights  shall  be  suspended  in  the  cases  of  natives  placed 
under  a  foreign  protection. 

These  intentions  of  the  Powers  were  modified  in  deference  to  the 
wishes  and  pledges  of  the  reigning  Prince  of  Moldavia,  Gregory 
Ghika,  who,  in  a  memorial  presented  to  the  Congress  of  Paris, 
asked  that  in  view  of  the  large  number  of  unassimilated  Jews  in 
the  Principalities,  the  realisation  of  the  principle  laid  down  by 
the  Conference  of  Constantinople,  "  excellente  en  elle-meme" 
should  be  reserved  for  the  local  government  "  qui  seul  peut 
1'appliquer  utilement."  (Sturdza:  Acte  si  documente  relative  la 
Istoria  Renascerei  Romaniei,  vol.  ii,  pp.  980,  986.)  Nevertheless, 
as  Lord  Enfield  stated  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  19th  April, 
1872,  the  Powers  regarded  the  acceptance  of  Article  XLVI  by  the 
Principalities  as  a  binding  pledge  to  accord  political  liberty 
gradually  to  the  Jews. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  PERSECUTIONS. 

The  evasion  of  this  pledge  has  been  the  chief  preoccupation  of 
the  Roumanian  legislature  during  the  past  fifty  years.  So  far  from 
ameliorating  the  condition  of  the  Jews,  the  Convention  of  Paris 
by  a  regrettable  accident  led  to  more  burdensome  disabilities  and 
a  more  barbarous  persecution  than  they  had  ever  before  endured. 
Under  the  old  Organic  Laws,  by  which  the  Principalities  were 
governed  previously  to  1859,  the  people  had  no  effective  voice  in 
the  Government.  Hence  there  was  little  cause  for  jealousy  be- 
tween Christians  and  Jews,  and  with  the  exception  of  occasional 
explosions  of  religious  fanaticism,  they  lived  together  in  harmony. 
The  new  order  of  things  established  in  1858  destroyed  this 
equality.  It  gave  to  the  Christian  population  a  monopoly  of 
political  power,  which  they  were  not  slow  to  use  against  their 
trade  rivals  among  the  unenfranchised  Jews.  This  unfortunate 
incidence  of  the  Convention  of  Paris  was  aggravated  by  the  new 
electoral  law  under  which  a  preponderating  franchise  was  reserved 
for  the  mercantile  classes,  with  whom  the  Jews,  being  chiefly  of 
the  same  classes,  most  directly  competed.  The  result  was  that  not 
only  was  the  fulfilment  of  Article  XLVI  of  the  Convention  of 
Paris  rendered  impossible,  but  the  whole  influence  of  the  mer- 
cantile electorate  was  employed  to  obtain  the  imposition  of  fresh 


140  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

disabilities  upon  the  Jews,  and  to  inflame  the  religious  and  racial 
prejudices  of  the  populace  against  them.  Instead  of  gradually 
emancipating  them  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Con- 
vention of  Paris,  even  their  status  as  "non-Christian  Moldo- 
Wallachs,"  acknowledged  in  that  instrument,  was  denied  them. 
They  were  assimilated  by  the  Civil  Code  of  1864  to  aliens — though 
admitted  by  the  Code  to  be  "indigenes  " — and  were  made  depend- 
ent on  a  difficult  and  tedious  process  of  naturalisation  for  their 
acquisition  of  political  rights  (Articles  VIII,  IX  and  XVI).  Even 
this  privilege  was  withdrawn  from  them  by  the  Constitution  of 
1866,  which  declared  (Article  VII)  that  only  Christians  may  ob- 
tain naturalisation.  Consequently  Article  XLVI  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  Paris  remained  a  dead  letter. 

THE  TREATY  OF  BERLIN  (1878). 

The  situation  of  the  Jews,  when  the  Berlin  Congress  met  in 
1878,  was  infinitely  worse  than  it  had  been  twenty  years  before, 
when  it  was  first  considered  and  dealt  with  by  the  Conferences  of 
Constantinople  and  Paris.  In  1858  their  status  was  at  least  that 
of  unenfranchised  Roumanians.  In  1878  they  had  been  declared 
aliens  and  outcasts.  Their  civil  rights  had  been  withdrawn  from 
them,  and  political  rights  had  been  placed  beyond  their  reach. 
They  were  the  pitiable  objects  of  a  mass  of  legal  disabilities  and 
police  restrictions  of  the  cruellest  description.  Besides  this,  they 
had  suffered  for  ten  years  from  a  succession  of  barbarous  perse- 
cutions and  mob  outrages,  which  had  reduced  them  to  the  utmost 
misery  and  had  excited  the  official  protests  of  the  Great  Powers, 
and  the  outspoken  indignation  of  the  civilised  world.  It  was  in 
these  circumstances  that  the  Congress  of  Berlin  found  itself 
called  upon  to  recognise  Roumania  as  an  independent  Kingdom. 
It  responded  with  Articles  XLIII  and  XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of  13th 
July,  1878,  which  withdrew  from  the  Government  of  Bucharest 
all  discretion  in  the  matter  of  the  emancipation  of  its  non- 
Christian  subjects,  and  imposed  upon  it  as  a  condition  of  recogni- 
tion the  absolute  equality  of  all  religious  creeds  and  confessions 
in  the  Kingdom.  The  following  is  the  text  of  these  Articles : 

XLIII.  The  High  Contracting  Parties  recognise  the  independ- 
ence of  Roumania,  subject  to  the  conditions  set  forth  in  the  two 
following  Articles. 

XLIV.  In  Roumania  the  difference  of  religious  creeds  and  con- 
fessions shall  not  be  alleged  against  any  person  as  a  ground  for 
exclusion  or  incapacity  in  matters  relating  to  the  enjoyment  of 
civil  and  political  rights,  admission  to  public  employments,  func- 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  141 

tions,  and  honours,  or  the  exercise  of  the  various  professions  and 
industries  in  any  locality  whatsoever. 

The  freedom  and  outward  exercise  of  all  forms  of  worship  shall 
be  assured  to  all  persons  belonging  to  the  Roumanian  State,  as  well 
as  to  foreigners,  and  no  hindrance  shall  be  offered  either  to  the 
hierarchical  organisation  of  the  different  communions,  or  to  their 
relations  with  their  spiritual  chiefs. 

The  subjects  and  citizens  of  all  the  Powers,  traders  or  others, 
shall  be  treated  in  Roumania,  without  distinction  of  creed,  on  a 
footing  of  perfect  equality. 

Unfortunately  the  Powers  were  once  again  persuaded  to  agree 
to  a  compromise. 

THE  NEGOTIATIONS  OF  1879-1880. 

Acting  on  the  arbitrary  and  illegal  assumption  that  all  Jews 
were  aliens,  Roumania  contended  that  the  only  disability  imposed 
upon  them  was  exclusion  from  naturalisation  under  Article  VII 
of  the  Constitution,  and  she  consequently  proposed  to  revise  this 
Article  in  satisfaction  of  Article  XLVI  of  the  Treaty.  (State 
Papers,  vol.  Ixxi,  p.  1138.)  This  offer  was  declined  by  the  Powers. 
(Ibid.,  pp.  1140,  1158,  1163.)  Its  effect  would  have  been — un- 
happily, it  has  been — not  merely  to  leave  the  grievances  of  the 
Jews  unremedied — for  by  the  Roumanian  Naturalisation  Law  the 
"  quality  of  citizen  "  could  only  be  obtained  by  individual  Act  of 
Parliament  after  a  probation  of  ten  years,  and  then  was  liable  to 
be  refused  by  the  Chambers — but  to  extinguish  the  national  status 
of  the  Jews  and  their  civil  rights  as  acknowledged  by  the  Conven- 
tion of  Paris  of  1858.  Roumania  then  shifted  her  ground.  Aban- 
doning the  pseudo-legal  argument,  she  adopted  a  plea  of  expedi- 
ency. She  protested  that  if  the  Jews  were  not  aliens  in  law  they 
were  aliens  in  fact — "  non  seulement  par  leur  religion,  mais  par 
la  langue,  le  cdutttme,  les  moe'urs,  et  les  aspirations,  en  un  mot, 
par  tout  ce  qui  constitue  le  caractere  distinctif  d'un  homme  dans 
la  societe."  (Ibid.,  p.  1154.)  They  were  "  incultes  et  fanatiques," 
peculiarly  accessible  to  foreign  influences  and,  owing  to  their 
large  numbers,  calculated  to  strike  "  a  fatal  blow  "  at  the  homo- 
geneity of  the  Roumanian  national  character.  Finally,  it  was 
urged  that  the  nation  was  strongly  opposed  to  an  immediate  and 
wholesale  emancipation,  and  that  if  the  Powers  insisted  upon  it, 
the  effect  would  be  that  the  cause  of  religious  liberty  in  Rou- 
mania would  be  endangered  rather  than  promoted.  (Ibid.,  pp. 
1136,  1161,  1165.)  The  force  of  these  arguments  was  not  denied 
by  the  Powers,  but  they  still  declined  to  admit  that  a  revision  of 
Article  VII  would  in  any  way  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Treaty 
of  Berlin. 


142  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

The  Roumanian  Government  then  offered  solemn  assurances 
that  if  the  proposed  solution  was  accepted,  it  would  be  made  to 
apply  at  once  to  assimilated  Jews,  and  that  the  naturalisation  of 
the  remainder  would  be  generously  facilitated.  M.  Boeresco,  the 
Roumanian  Foreign  Minister,  even  stated  to  Sir  William  White, 
"  that  if  the  present  Bill  could  only  become  a  law,  a  more  complete 
measure  of  emancipation  would  be  accepted  by  the  electorate  later 
on,  when  the  present  agitations  had  subsided."  (Ibid.,  pp.  1162, 
1168-1169.)  The  most  specific,  however,  of  all  the  pledges  given 
to  the  Powers  was  contained  in  a  circular  dispatch  of  M.  Boeresco, 
dated  31st  August,  1879,  which  he  himself  described  as  "  a  sort  of 
expose  ties  motifs  of  the  measure  we  are  about  to  submit  to  the 
Chambers."  The  following  are  the  essential  passages  in  this 
important  document: 

Will  the  Jews  who  do  not  immediately  obtain  naturalisation 
remain  foreigners?  No,  they  will  remain  what  they  have  always 
"been — Roumanian  subjects.  But  in  the  measure  that  they  identify 
themselves  with  the  population  of  the  country,  in  the  measure 
that  by  schools  and  other  means  of  preparation  they  become  en- 
lightened men  and  attached  to  the  country,  they  will  be  able  to 
obtain  and  exercise  political  rights. 

******** 

There  will  be  three  categories  of  Jews:  Foreigners,  Roumanian 
subjects,  and  Citizens.  Hitherto  both  the  foreign  and  native  Jews 
have  been  the  objects  of  certain  prohibitions,  but  in  their  quality 
of  Jews  alone.  From  the  moment  that  Article  VII  of  the  Consti- 
tution shall  be  suppressed  all  these  prohibitions  will  disappear, 
and  no  distinction  will  be  made  between  the  foreign  Jew  and  the 
foreign  Christian.  It  will  be  the  same  with  Jews  who  are  Rou- 
manian subjects.  Hitherto  certain  civil  rights  have  been  denied 
them.  Thus  they  could  not  be  advocates,  professors,  State  engi- 
neers, they  could  not  serve  on  juries,  etc.  Under  the  new  regime 
they  will  have  in  the  first  place  all  the  rights  enjoyed  by  foreigners 
in  general.  Then,  as  Roumanian  subjects  they  will  have  the  right 
of  serving  in  the  army  and  the  national  guard,  the  right  of 
acquiring  real  estate,  the  right  to  be  advocates,  to  serve  on 
juries,  to  exercise  freely  every  profession  and  every  trade;  they 
will,  in  short,  have  the  same  civil  rights  as  Roumanians,  and  will 
be  protected  in  the  same  way  by  the  law  and  by  the  authorities. 
(Official  Documents  extracted  from,  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence 
of  2/14  September,  1878,  17/29  July,  1880,  Bucharest,  1880,  pp.  121- 
123.) 

To  these  assurances  the  Austrian  and  Italian  Governments  were 
disposed  to  lend  a  favourable  ear,  but  Great  Britain,  France  and 
Germany  still  demanded  legislative  guarantees  for  the  execution 
of  the  Treaty,  if  not  immediately,  at  any  rate  within  a  reasonable 
time. 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  143 

THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1880. 

While  the  negotiations  were  still  in  progress,  the  revision  of 
Article  VII  was  adopted  by  the  Roumanian  Parliament,  and  pro- 
mulgated by  the  Prince  in  the  following  terms: 

In  room  of  Article  VII,  which  is  revised,  the  following  shall  be 
placed : 

Article  VII.  The  difference  of  religious  creeds  and  confessions 
does  not  constitute  in  Roumania  an  obstacle  to  the  acquirement  of 
civil  and  political  rights  and  their  exercise. 

1.  Every  foreigner,  without  distinction  of  creed,  whether  en- 
joying any  foreign  protection  or  not,  can  acquire  naturalisation 
under  the  following  conditions: 

(a)  By  addressing  to  the  Government  an  application  for  natu- 
ralisation, in  which  must  be  declared  the  capital  he  possesses, 
his  profession,  and  his  wish  to  establish  his  domicile  in  Roumania. 

(b)  By  residing  in  the  country  for  ten  years  after  having  made 
this  application,  and  by  proving  by  his  acts  that  he  is  useful  to 
the  country. 

2.  The  following  may  be  exempted  from  this  delay  of  residence 
(ten  years) : 

(a)  All  who  shall  have  introduced  into  the  country  industries, 
useful  inventions,   or   distinguished  talents,  or  who  shall  have 
founded  large  commercial  or  industrial  establishments. 

(b)  All  who  have  been  born   and  educated  in  Roumania  of 
parents  domiciled  in  the  country,  and  have,  neither  in  their  own 
case  nor  in  that  of  their  parents,  at  any  time  been  in  the  enjoyment 
of  any  foreign  protection. 

(c)  All  who  have  served  with  the  colours  during  the  war  of 
independence,  and  these  can  be  naturalised  collectively  on  the 
proposition  of  the  Government  by  a  single  Law  without  further 
formalities. 

3.  Naturalisation  can  only  be  granted  by  a  Law,  and  individually. 

4.  A  special  Law  will  determine  the  manner  in  which  foreigners 
can  establish  their  domicile  on  Roumanian  territory. 

5.  Roumanians,  and  naturalised  Roumanian  citizens,  can  alone 
acquire  rural  estates  in  Roumania. 

Rights  acquired  up  to  the  present  time  are  respected. 

The  International  Conventions  existing  at  present  remain  in 
force,  with  all  their  clauses,  and  for  the  term  mentioned  therein. 

At  the  same  time  a  Bill  was  passed  naturalising  883  Jews  who 
had  served  with  the  colours  during  the  war  of  Liberation. 

Wearied  by  the  long  negotiations  and  sundered  by  their  varying 
interests  in  the  question,  the  Powers  now  reluctantly  consented 
to  accept  the  Roumanian  solution.  Before  doing  so,  however,  they 
extracted  from  the  Roumanian  Government  a  formal  declaration 
of  the  acceptance  of  the  principle  of  Article  XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of 
Berlin,  and  of  its  determination  to  act  upon  it  "loyally  and 
sincerely."  This  was  given  in  the  following  note: 


144  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

Article  VII  of  the  Roumanian  Constitution,  sanctioning  the 
principle  of  Article  XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  has  opened  to 
the  Jews  access  to  citizenship,  and  has  abrogated  all  existing  laws 
contrary  to  that  principle.  That  principle  will  continue  to  be 
observed  sincerely  and  loyally.  The  organic  powers  will  devote 
themselves  to  assuring  its  respect,  and  will  pursue  its  application 
with  the  view  of  securing  a  more  and  more  complete  assimilation 
of  the  Jews. 

....  Meanwhile,  all  Jews  residing  in  the  country  will  possess, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  private  civil  law,  an  assured  juridical 
position,  and  will  have  no  cause  to  fear  arbitrary  administrative 
measures  or  exceptional  laws  aimed  at  confessions  or  religions. 
(Statement  by  Signor  Cairoli  in  the  Italian  Parliament,  9th 
December,  1879.) 

On  the  receipt  of  this  note,  Austria  and  Italy  at  once  notified 
their  recognition  of  the  new  Kingdom.  Their  example  was 
followed,  after  considerable  hesitation,  by  Great  Britain,  France, 
and  Germany.  The  latter  Powers,  however,  took  the  precaution 
to  formulate  in  precise  terms  the  view  they  took  of  the  transaction 
with  the  Roumanian  Government,  pointing  out  that  the  conditions 
of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  had  admittedly  not  been  fulfilled,  and  that 
they  relied  on  the  solemn  pledges  of  the  Principalities  to  observe 
them  in  the  spirit,  and  to  execute  them  gradually  in  the  letter. 
These  important  reservations  were  contained  in  the  following 
paragraphs  of  the  identic  note  presented  to  M.  Boeresco  by  the 
three  Powers  on  20th  February,  1880: 

Her  Majesty's  Government  cannot  consider  the  new  Constitu- 
tional provisions  which  have  been  brought  to  their  cognizance — 
and  particularly  those  by  which  persons  belonging  to  a  non- 
Christian  creed  domiciled  in  Roumania,  and  not  belonging  to  any 
foreign  nationality,  are  required  to  submit  to  the  formalities  of 
individual  naturalisation — as  being  a  complete  fulfilment  of  the 
views  of  the  Powers  signatories  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin. 

Trusting,  however,  to  the  determination  of  the  Prince's  Govern- 
ment to  approximate  more  and  more,  in  the  execution  of  these 
provisions,  to  the  liberal  intentions  entertained  by  the  Powers, 
and  taking  note  of  the  positive  assurances  to  that  effect  which 
have  been  conveyed  to  them,  the  Government  of  Her  Britannic 
Majesty,  being  desirous  of  giving  to  the  Roumanian  nation  a  proof 
of  their  friendly  sentiments,  have  decided  to  recognise  the  Princi- 
pality of  Roumania  as  an  independent  State.  Her  Majesty's 
Government  consequently  declare  themselves  ready  to  enter  into 
regular  diplomatic  relations  with  the  Prince's  Government. 

ROUMANIAN  PLEDGES  REPUDIATED. 

Except  that  the  rights  of  the  Roumanian  Jews  had  been  restated 
by  the  Powers  in  a  more  categorical  form  than  in  1858,  nothing 
was  changed  by  the  Treaty  of  Berlin.  The  illusory  pledges  of 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  145 

Prince  Gregory  Ghika,  unfulfilled  for  twenty  years,  had  been 
repeated  by  the  Government  of  King  Charles  with  more  emphasis 
and  circumstantiality,  but  with  just  as  little  intention  of  fulfilling 
them.  Thirty  more  years  have  now  passed,  and  a  new  generation 
of  Jews  has  been  born  in  the  land.  They,  however,  are  still  as  far 
from  emancipation  as  were  their  fathers,  when  their  sad  lot  first 
engaged  the  sympathy  of  Europe  and  the  good  offices  of  the  Great 
Powers.  They  are  still  held  to  be  aliens;  naturalisation  is  still 
practically  inaccessible  to  them,  and  their  persecution,  legal  and 
otherwise,  has  been  in  no  way  relaxed. 

These  evasions  of  the  Treaty  have  been  facilitated  by  two 
defects  in  the  compromise  arrived  at  in  February,  1880.  One  was 
the  omission  to  secure  a  legislative  acknowledgment  from  the 
Roumanian  Parliament  that  Jews  belonging  to  no  other  nation- 
ality and  enjoying  no  foreign  protection  were  Roumanian 
nationals  in  the  sense  of  Article  XLVI  of  the  Convention  of 
Paris,  and  the  admission  of  M.  Boeresco  in  his  dispatch  of  31st 
August,  1879.  The  second  defect  was  contained  in  paragraph  3 
of  the  revised  Article  VII  of  the  Constitution,  which  virtually  left 
the  Roumanian  Parliament  free  to  deal  with  Jewish  petitions  for 
naturalisation  as  it  pleased. 

In  the  case  of  naturalisations  the  result  has  been  this.  So  far 
from  facilitating  the  extension  of  political  rights  to  the  Jews  in 
accordance  with  the  solemn  pledges  given  to  the  Powers,  the 
Roumanian  Chambers  have  placed  every  possible  impediment  in 
the  way  of  granting  them.  Since  the  recognition  of  the  Kingdom 
in  1880,  the  total  number  of  Jews  for  whom  naturalisation  Bills 
have  been  passed  is  176  out  of  an  adult  male  population  of  about 
100,000,  almost  all  of  whom  are  natives,  and  more  than  20,000 
of  whom  have  duly  performed  their  military  service  under  the 
Conscription  law. 

In  the  case  of  the  national  status  of  the  Jews,  the  result  has 
been  to  enable  the  Roumanian  Government  to  reaffirm  their  alien 
status,  and  to  re-enact  all  the  old  persecuting  laws  under  the  guise 
of  laws  relating  to  foreigners.  It  is  true  that  these  laws  apply 
ostensibly  to  all  foreigners  alike,  but  in  regard  to  foreigners  with 
a  determined  nationality,  their  persecuting  incidence  is  either  not 
felt  by  reason  of  the  floating  character  and  limited  interests  of 
that  class  of  the  population,  or  is  defeated  by  the  protection  of 
their  respective  Governments.  The  Jews,  on  the  other  hand,  hav- 
ing no  foreign  Governments  to  appeal  to,  are  subjected  to  the  full 
force  of  those  laws  which  usually  apply  to  peculiar  circumstances 

11 


146  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

of  their  social  life,  differentiating  them  from  authentic  aliens. 
Moreover,  the  persecuting  possibilities  of  such  laws  are  often 
accentuated  by  administrative  circulars,  and  almost  invariably  by 
the  anti-Semitic  zeal  of  the  local  authorities,  to  whom  their  execu- 
tion is  confided,  and  who  enjoy  a  perfect  immunity  for  their  harsh 
and  often  illegal  action. 

DISABILITIES  RENEWED. 

The  following  is  a  synopsis  of  the  persecuting  legislation  above 
referred  to: 

In  the  first  place,  attention  must  be  directed  to  a  class  of  laws 
ostensibly  aimed  at  foreigners,  but  bearing  harshly  on  Jews,  which 
were  passed  previously  to  1878.  In  accordance  with  the  Declara- 
tion of  the  Roumanian  Government  made  to  the  Powers  on  the  eve 
of  the  recognition  of  the  Kingdom,  these  laws,  so  far  as  they  apply 
to  native  Jews,  should  have  been  abrogated,  as  being  "  contrary 
to  the  principle  of  Article  XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin."  To  this 
day  they  remain  on  the  Statute  Book.  They  comprise  the  Decree 
of  4th  December,  1864,  reserving  the  profession  of  advocates  to 
Roumanians  born  or  naturalised;  that  of  25th  October,  1869, 
placing  the  same  restriction  on  the  trade  of  pharmacists ;  the  Law 
of  3d  February,  1868,  requiring  that  tenders  for  public  works 
should  only  be  accepted  from  persons  possessing  civil  rights; 
that  of  3d  February,  1872,  limiting  the  bonding,  manufacture,  and 
sale  of  tobacco  to  Roumanian  citizens;  and  the  Law  of  13th 
February,  1873,  placing  a  similar  restriction  on  the  retail  sale  of 
spirituous  liquors.  The  latter  law  reduced  thousands  of  Jews  to 
beggary  without  affecting  a  single  authentic  foreigner,  and  led 
Lord  Granville  to  propose  an  intervention  of  the  Powers,  which 
was  only  defeated  by  the  non-adhesion  of  Russia. 

Since  1878  these  restrictions  have  been  multiplied  with  the 
cruellest  ingenuity. 

A  Law  of  1868,  which  forbade  the  settlement  of  Jews  in  rural 
communes,  was  renewed  in  1881  and  1887,  and  in  order  to  concen- 
trate them  in  a  comparatively  few  towns,  where  they  could  be 
more  easily  persecuted  by  the  police,  a  large  number  of  urban 
communes  were  transformed  into  rural  communes,  and  the  Jews 
expelled  from  them  under  circumstances  of  great  hardship. 

Jewish  children  are  not  admitted  to  the  national  schools  on  the 
same  footing  as  Christian  children.  Although  the  Law  of  12th 
May,  1896,  declares  primary  instruction  obligatory  and  gratuitous 
for  all  Roumanians,  a  heavy  fee  is  imposed  upon  "  foreigners," 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  147 

and  even  then  they  can  only  be  admitted  when  the  requirements 
of  the  Christian  population  have  been  fully  satisfied.  The  result 
is  that  in  many  cases  the  primary  schools  are  closed  to  Jews. 
Similar  restrictions  apply  to  secondary,  superior,  technical,  agri- 
cultural and  normal  schools.  (Laws  of  23d  February,  1893,  and 
23d  March,  1898.)  At  the  same  time  the  efforts  of  the  Jews  to 
found  and  maintain  their  own  schools  are  seriously  obstructed  by 
the  Government  and  local  authorities. 

Public  employments  and  all  the  liberal  professions  are  closed 
to  Jews,  and  they  are  virtually  excluded  from  many  trades.  They 
cannot  act  as  stock  or  trade  brokers  of  any  kind;  they  are  excluded 
from  Chambers  of  Commerce,  and  they  may  not  be  members  of 
Artisans'  Corporations.  (Laws  of  8th  June,  1884;  24th  June, 
1886;  28th  February,  1887;  22d  June,  1893;  26th  January,  1894, 
and  18th  February,  1899.)  By  the  Law  of  15th  March,  1884,  they 
were  expelled  from  the  peddling  traffic,  in  which  20,000  are  said 
to  have  been  engaged.  Jewish  workmen  can  only  be  admitted  into 
factories  in  the  proportion  of  one-third  to  two-thirds  Christians 
(Law  of  24th  May,  1887),  which,  in  view  of  their  concentration  in 
towns,  often  renders  employment  for  large  numbers  of  them  hope- 
less. In  1902  an  attempt  was  actually  made  to  deprive  them  of 
the  exercise  of  all  handicrafts  by  a  law  (17th  March)  which  re- 
quired inter  alia  that  no  "  foreigner  "  should  be  permitted  to  exer- 
cise a  handicraft  in  Roumania  unless  he  could  show  reciprocity 
for  Roumanians  in  his  own  country.  The  Jews  being  "  foreigners 
not  under  foreign  protection  "  were  unable  to  prove  this  reci- 
procity, and  had  it  not  been  for  the  representations  of  the  Powers, 
they  would  have  been  reduced  to  absolute  mendicancy.  The  law 
is,  however,  still  employed  in  other  respects  to  hamper  Jewish 
artisans  in  earning  their  daily  bread. 

A  characteristic  example  of  the  ingenuity  with  which  this  legis- 
lation is  framed  in  order  to  evade  the  spirit  of  the  Treaty  of 
Berlin,  while  apparently  complying  with  its  letter,  is  afforded  by 
the  Military  Law  of  21st  November,  1882.  By  Article  I  of  this 
law  "  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  country  "  are  liable  to  military 
service.  By  Article  II  "  subjects  of  foreign  states  "  are  declared 
ineligible  for  the  army.  Hence  the  Jews  being  "  inhabitants " 
but  not  "  subjects  of  foreign  states,"  are  called  upon  to  serve, 
although  deprived  of  all  civil  and  political  rights.  Promotion, 
however,  is  denied  them  on  the  ground  that  "  service  in  the  army 
is  a  duty,  while  the  rank  of  officer  is  a  public  function  reserved 


148  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

for  Roumanian  citizens."     (Speech  of  M.  Bratiano  in  the  Rou- 
manian Senate,  27th  May,  1882.) 

As  alleged  aliens  the  Jews  are  also  liable  to  expulsion,  not  only 
from  rural  communes,  but  even  from  the  country  itself.  This  has 
often  been  resorted  to  in  order  to  prevent  them  from  agitating 
publicly  against  their  disabilities.  They  are  not  permitted  to 
ventilate  their  grievances  in  the  public  press.  They  may  not  hold 
public  meetings,  and  they  have  no  right  of  petition  to  Parliament 
or  the  King.  They  are  compelled  to  take  out  certificates  of  resi- 
dence as  foreigners,  and  although  taxed  for  the  support  of  local 
hospitals,  they  have  no  right  of  entry  into  those  institutions. 
Besides  these  legal  disabilities,  they  suffer  the  harshest  treatment 
at  the  hands  of  the  local  authorities,  who  readily  take  advantage 
of  their  helplessness  to  realize  against  them  all  the  underlying 
anti-Semitism  of  the  laws  relating  to  aliens.  Jews  are  frequently 
arrested  and  beaten  without  cause  and  with  absolute  impunity, 
and  in  some  districts  special  taxes,  beyond  those  which  they  pay 
in  common  with  all  Roumanian  citizens,  are  levied  upon  them. 
In  a  word,  the  Roumanian  Jew  is  a  veritable  outlaw  from  his 
youth  upwards.  (For  texts  of  the  above-mentioned  laws  and 
examples  of  their  anti-Jewish  application  see  Sincerus:  "Z/es 
Juifs  en  Roumanie,"  London,  1901.) 

AIMS  AND  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  PERSECUTION. 

Apart  from  the  illegality  of  this  regime,  its  barbarous  purpose 
and  the  embarrassments  it  causes  to  foreign  countries  must 
render  it  a  matter  of  grave  concern  to  the  Powers  signatories  of 
the  Treaties  of  1858  and  1878.  What  is  its  purpose?  A  careful 
examination  of  the  laws  aimed  at  the  Jews  shows  that  they  go  far 
beyond  the  alleged  defensive  needs  of  Roumanian  national  homo- 
geneity, or  of  the  social  and  economic  interests,  however  extrava- 
gant, of  any  class  of  the  Christian  population. 

The  effect  of  these  laws  must  be  to  prevent  the  assimilation  of 
the  Jews,  to  perpetuate  any  exclusive  characteristics  and  ten- 
dencies they  may  possess,  and  to  alienate  them  from  the  national 
sentiment.  When  it  is  remembered  that  under  the  pledges  given 
to  the  Powers  by  the  Roumanian  Government  in  1880,  it  is  this 
very  assimilation  of  the  Jews  which  would  destroy  the  last  vestige 
of  excuse  for  their  non-emancipation,  can  we  doubt  that  these 
effects  have  been  deliberately  sought  by  the  Legislature,  and  that 
assimilation  has  been  forcibly  discouraged  in  order  to  justify  the 
Roumanian  State  in  resisting  the  Treaty  of  Berlin?  Nothing  can 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  149 

be  more  convincing  on  this  head  than  the  virtual  exclusion  of 
Jews  from  the  national  schools  and  the  liberal  professions.  In 
1879  it  was  complained  that  the  Jews  were  "  incultes,  fanatiques, 
ayant  une  autre  langue,  d'autres  moeurs,  d'autres  sentiments." 
(State  Papers,  vol.  Ixxi,  p.  1161.)  In  view  of  the  illiteracy  of  the 
Roumanian  people  themselves — 88.4  per  cent  (Statesman's  Year 
Book,  p.  984),  while  that  of  the  Jews  is  probably  less  than  5  per 
cent — and  the  fanaticism  of  the  anti-Semitic  movement  in  the 
country,  these  are  strange  excuses  for  denying  the  eligibility  of 
the  Jews  for  the  rights  of  Roumanian  nationals.  But  even  were 
they  relatively  well  founded,  how  can  Roumania  justify  her  con- 
duct in  seeking  to  perpetuate  these  conditions,  while  pleading  that 
they  stand  in  the  way  of  loyal  fulfilment  of  her  Treaty  obligations 
and  pledges?  The  truth  is  that  the  Jews  are  being  systematically 
and  intentionally  barbarised  and  impoverished,  in  order  to  exclude 
them  from  their  rights,  and,  if  possible,  to  get  rid  of  them  alto- 
gether. The  oppressive  economic  laws  follow  logically  from  the 
barbarising  laws,  for  it  is  obviously  not  to  the  advantage  of  any 
state  to  retain  a  class  of  inhabitants  who  are  alien  in  manners  and 
sentiment  from  the  bulk  of  the  nation.  Hence  the  efforts  to  make 
life  impossible  to  the  Jews,  efforts  which  have  already  driven  over 
100,000  into  a  condition  approaching  vagabondage,  and  during  the 
last  ten  years  has  forced  over  60,000  to  emigrate.  The  exact  num- 
ber of  refugees  for  this  period  cannot  be  stated,  but  between  1899 
and  1904  alone  it  was  officially  returned  at  41,754.  (Bulletin  de 
r Alliance  Israelite,  1904,  p.  55.) 

It  is  chiefly  through  this  emigration  that  embarrassment  is 
caused  to  foreign  countries.  It  has  been  felt  in  England,  and  it 
played  no  small  part  in  the  agitation  which  led  to  the  enactment 
of  the  Aliens  Act,  1905.  It  has  also  been  felt  in  the  United  States, 
and  it  compelled  the  Washington  Cabinet  in  September,  1902,  to 
address  a  vigorous  note  to  the  Signatory  Powers  of  the  Treaty  of 
Berlin,  protesting  against  the  inhuman  violations  of  that  instru- 
ment by  Roumania.  It  is,  moreover,  a  source  of  danger  to  the 
peace  of  the  Near  East,  and  especially  to  the  new  Constitutional 
regime  so  happily  inaugurated  in  Turkey.  The  demoralizing 
example  of  Roumania  is  calculated  to  encourage  and  in  a  sense 
justify  the  reactionaries  in  the  Ottoman  Empire.  It  was  by 
similar  violations  of  the  practice  of  Liberal  states  that  the  Softa 
movement  against  the  Turkish  Constitution  in  1876-78  was  de- 
fended. (Schulthess,  Geschichtskalender,  1876,  p.  517.)  The 
precedent  is  ominous.  If  Europe  permits  a  Christian  state  which 


150  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

is  her  own  creation  to  exclude  non-Christians  from  national  rights, 
why  should  a  Mussulman  state  be  compelled  to  admit  non-Mussul- 
mans? This  question  was  asked  in  1876  with  disastrous  conse- 
quences, and  it  may  quite  conceivably  be  asked  again. 

THE  DEFENCE  OF  ROUMANIA. 

What  is  the  defence  of  Roumania  against  these  serious  charges? 
It  is  at  once  simple  and  amazingly  cynical.  Roumania  takes  her 
stand  on  the  argument  that  the  Jews  have  always  been  aliens  in 
the  land,  and  that  the  strict  letter  of  the  Treaties  of  1858  and 
1878  did  not  alter  their  status.  When  she  is  reminded  of  the 
official  admission  to  the  contrary  of  M.  Boeresco  in  1879,  of  the 
formal  and  categorical  pledges  of  1880,  and  of  the  precise  state- 
ment of  the  terms  on  which  the  three  Western  Powers  recognised 
her  independence,  she  points  to  the  equivocal  revision  of  Article 
VII  of  her  Constitution,  which  was  ingenuously  accepted  by 
Europe,  and  declares  that  she  is  bound  by  that  alone.  No  attempt 
is  made  to  hide  the  bad  faith  of  this  astonishing  plea.  Indeed, 
Roumanian  writers  of  eminence  boast  of  it.  "  Le  traite  de  Berlin," 
writes  M.  Suliotis  in  the  Journal  du  droit  Internationale  prive 
(vol.  xiv,  p.  563),  "a  cru  faire  merveille  en  faveur  des  etrangers 
mais  la  Roumanie  a  cru  habilement  eluder  les  enconvenients  qui 
pouvaient  resulter  de  rapplication  de  I'article  VII  dans  le  sens  du 
traite  de  Berlin,  qui  n'a  eu  d'autres  resultats  que  de  rendre  plus 
difficile  la  situation  des  etrangers"  No  enemy  of  Roumania  could 
ask  for  a  more  damaging  statement  of  the  case  against  her.  Nor 
does  this  stand  alone.  Writing  in  the  Romanul  of  25th  December, 
1881,  M.  Rosetti,  an  ex-Minister  and  one  of  the  leading  statesmen 
of  the  Kingdom,  also  boasted  of  the  trick  which  had  been  success- 
fully played  on  Europe.  "  We  may  congratulate  ourselves  to-day," 
he  writes,  "  on  having  solved  the  Jewish  question  in  a  national 
sense,  and  that — we  may  now  avow  loudly — contrary  to  the  mani- 
fest will  of  the  Powers  and  even  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Treaty  of  Berlin." 

ARE  THE  JEWS  ALIENS? 

Notwithstanding  the  confidence  thus  shown  in  the  letter  of  the 
Treaties,  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether  even  in  this  technical 
respect  Roumania  is  on  safe  ground.  The  Treaty  of  Berlin,  it  is 
true,  does  not  specifically  recognise  the  Jews  as  nationals,  but  that 
Treaty  is  governed  by  the  Convention  of  Paris  of  1858,  and  it  is 
certain  that  Article  XLVI  of  that  instrument  accepted  all  native 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  151 

Christians  and  non-Christians  alike  as  Moldo-Wallachs,  and  con- 
ferred on  them  equal  civil  rights.  It  is  idle  to  pretend  in  reply 
to  this  that  the  Jews  of  the  Principalities  were  at  that  time  aliens 
by  law.  In  the  first  place  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  they  were, 
seeing  that  as  natives  they  were  often  distinguished  from  foreign- 
ers in  the  pre-1858  legislation.  But  even  if  they  were,  a  new  era 
was  inaugurated  by  the  Convention  of  1858,  which  swept  away  the 
old  Organic  Laws  and  organized  the  autonomy  of  the  Principali- 
ties on  an  entirely  new  and  modern  basis.  For  it  must  be  remem- 
bered, as  Lord  Clarendon  pointed  out  in  1870,  that  the  Convention 
was  not  a 'mere  enumeration  of  incidental  stipulations,  but  was 
avowedly  the  fundamental  basis  of  the  public  law  of  the  Princi- 
palities in  their  new  condition.  Nothing  of  the  old  regime  incon- 
sistent with  its  provisions  could  survive.  If  the  national  status 
of  Jews  can  be  denied  to-day  on  the  ground  that  it  existed  in  the 
Organic  Laws,  many  other  disabilities  which  weighed  on  Christians 
as  well,  in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  which  gave 
rise  to  the  Roumanian  revolution  of  1848,  might  be  revived.  The 
solidarity  of  the  Jews  and  Christians  in  this  respect  is  indeed 
strikingly  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  the  revolutionary  Govern- 
ment of  Wallachia  in  1848  actually  proclaimed  the  emancipation 
of  the  Jews,  whose  sons  and  grandsons  to-day  are  declared  aliens. 
(State  Papers,  vol.  Ixxi,  p.  1153.)  This  alone  suffices  to  destroy 
the  contention  that  all  the  Jews  of  Roumania  were  foreigners  in 
the  eye  of  the  law  in  1858. 

Nor  are  the  Roumanians  justified  in  assuming  that  if  the 
absence  of  any  recognition  of  native  Jews  as  Roumanian  subjects 
in  Article  XLIV  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  stood  alone,  it  would 
sanction  the  Roumanian  assumption  of  their  alien  status.  That 
this  is  not  the  case  is  indeed  clear  from  the  protocols  of  the 
Congress.  The  ideas  and  intention  which  guided  the  Powers  were 
expressed  with  as  much  precision  as  eloquence  by  M.  Waddington 
at  the  sitting  of  the  Conference  of  28th  June,  1878.  On  the  ques- 
tion that  an  Article  exactly  similar  in  terms  to  Article  XLIV 
should  be  imposed  on  Servia,  Prince  Gortschakoff  objected  to  the 
granting  of  "  civil  and  political  rights  "  to  the  Jews  of  both  Servia 
and  Roumania.  Thereupon  the  French  plenipotentiary  said: 

He  considered  it  important  to  seize  this  solemn  opportunity  to 
procure  an  affirmation  by  the  Representatives  of  Europe  .of  the 
principles  of  religious  liberty.  His  Excellency  added  that  Servia, 
which  demands  to  enter  into  the  European  family  upon  the  same 
footing  as  the  other  States,  should  in  the  first  place  acknowledge 
the  principles  which  form  the  basis  of  social  organization  in  all 
the  States  of  Europe,  and  accept  them  as  a  necessary  condition 


152  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

of  the   favor  she   solicits.      (Protocols   of  the  Berlin   Congress, 
C-2083,  p.  120.) 

It  was  on  this  principle  that  the  Powers  acted  when  the  effects 
of  Article  XLIV  were  considered.  Their  idea  was  that  the  emanci- 
pation of  native  Jews  in  Roumania  should  be  assimilated  to  the 
like  emancipations  in  Western  Europe.  This  view,  indeed,  was 
at  once  adopted  by  Servia,  where  Jews  had  previously  been  perse- 
cuted and  oppressed  in  the  same  way  and  on  the  same  grounds  as 
in  Roumania.  Moreover,  it  must  be  obvious  that  when  the  Powers 
stipulated  for  religious  equality  "  in  matters  relating  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  civil  and  political  rights,"  they  could  not  have  contem- 
plated the  exclusion  of  Jews  qua  Jews  from  the  fundamental  right 
of  nationality. 

It  should  also  be  observed — though  this  is  quite  a  minor  matter 
— that  even  if  the  Roumanian  contention  is  sound,  the  treatment 
of  the  Jews  is  none  the  less  a  violation  of  Article  XLIV.  The  con- 
cluding alinea  of  that  Article  provides  for  the  equal  treatment  of 
all  foreigners.  This  the  Jews  do  not  enjoy  even  in  their  alleged 
capacity  of  foreigners,  for  apart  from  the  unequal  incidence  of  the 
Roumanian  legislation  relating  to  aliens,  the  Jews  are  compelled 
to  serve  in  the  army,  while  other  aliens  are  exempt,  and  their  civil 
status  is  arbitrarily  regulated  by  Roumanian  law,  while  that  of 
other  foreigners  is  subject  to  the  law  of  their  respective  countries. 

CONCLUSION. 

On  these  grounds  the  Jewish  communities  of  Great  Britain 
venture  to  hope  that  His  Majesty's  Government  will  be  able  to  see 
their  way  to  submit  this  grave  question  to  the  Signatory  Powers 
of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  and  to  seek  with  them  for  a  solution  which 
will  put  an  end  to  a  situation  which  is  not  only  a  source  of  much 
human  suffering,  but  also  a  scandalous  defiance  of  the  will  of 
Europe  as  embodied  in  solemn  Treaties.  Of  all  violations  of  the 
Treaty  of  Berlin  which  have  taken  place  during  the  last  thirty 
years,  the  worst  are  assuredly  those  which  have  set  at  nought 
the  liberating  spirit  which  is  of  the  very  essence  of  that  compact. 
Territorial  changes  and  changes  in  the  political  status  of  the 
various  territories  of  South-Eastern  Europe  are  of  subsidiary  con- 
sequence. The  Treaty  of  Berlin  is  above  all  a  great  charter  of 
emancipation,  especially  of  civil  and  religious  equality.  This 
principle  is  embodied  in  no  fewer  than  five  of  its  Articles,  relating 
to  every  political  division  of  the  vast  region  with  which  it  deals, 
and  in  each  case  it  is  asserted  as  the  fundamental  basis  of  the 


Jewish  Disabilities  in  the  Balkan  States.  153 

liberties  conferred  on  the  various  states.  Hence  to  violate  this 
principle  is  the  gravest  blow  which  can  be  struck  at  the  Treaty, 
besides  being  a  menace  to  the  peace  and  social  stability  of  the 
Near  East,  and  an  offence  against  international  morality.  To-day 
this  principle  has  been  loyally  complied  with  by  all  the  States  of 
South-Eastern  Europe  with  the  single  exception  of  Roumania.  In 
that  Kingdom,  over  200,000  human  beings,  languishing  in  a  bond- 
age worse  than  ever  oppressed  the  Christians  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire,  still  invoke  the  liberating  spirit  of  the  Charter  of  1878. 
The  Great  Powers  of  Europe  assuredly  cannot  be  insensible  to 
this  cry,  at  a  moment  when  they  are  about  to  consider  the  revision 
of  this  very  Charter. 


INDEX. 


Abell,  W.  Maitland,  ref.  to  paper 
by,  80  (note). 

"Abrogation  of  the  Russian 
Treaty,"  62d  Congress,  2d  Ses- 
sion, House  Report  No.  179, 
alluded  to,  6  (note). 

"  Acte  si  documente  relative  la 
Istoria  Renascerei  Romaniei " 
(Sturdza),  ref.  to,  139. 

Adams,   John,   5    (note). 

A.  d'Avril,  alluded  to,  48   (note). 

Adee,  Alvey  A.,  1   (note). 

Adler,  Dr.  Cyrus,  1  (note), 
preface  by,  ix-x. 
work  by,  alluded  to,  4  (note), 
ref.  to,  41,  80   (note), 
correspondence    relating    to    the 
Jewish   question   in   Roumania, 
84,  86-92. 

Adler,  Chief  Rabbi  Hermann,  24. 

Alexander,  Prince,  of  Bulgaria,  79. 

Alexander,  Prince,  of  Serbia,  letter 
of,  to  King  Charles  of  Rou- 
mania, 74. 

Alexander  Pasha,  121. 

Algeciras  Conference,  U.  S.  at, 
makes  plea  in  behalf  of  Jews 
88. 

All  Pasha,   121. 

"  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Juden- 
tums,"  ref.  to,  3  (note),  16 
(note),  35  (note),  44  (note), 
49  (note),  71. 

Alliance  Israelite  Universelle,  2,  7, 
22,  24,  29,  35,  36,  39,  44,  47, 
48,  49,  50,  52,  53  (note),  65, 
70,  72,  73,  74,  82  (note),  111. 
Memorial  of,  to  the  Congress  of 
Berlin,  44,  105-107. 

"  American  contributions  toward 
the  Removal  of  Jewish  Disa- 
bilities in  the  Balkan  States," 
by  Max,  J.  Kohler  and  Simon 
Wolf,  Ix. 


American  contributions  toward  re- 
moval of  Jewish  disabilities  in 
the  Balkan  States,  ix,  1,  2,  3, 
6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14, 
16,  17,  18,  19,  20,  21,  22,  23, 
24,  25,  26,  27  and  (note) -28 
(note),  29,  30,  31,  32,  33,  34, 
36,  37,  38,  39,  41,  42,  43,  55 
(note),  80-93,  108-114,  114- 
137. 
See  also  under  United  States. 

"  American  Hebrew,"  ref.  to,  44 
(note),  48  (note),  82  (note). 

11  American  in  Roumania,  An,"  ref. 
to,  78  (note). 

American     Jewish     Committee,     x. 
correspondence    relating    to    the 
Jewish   question   in   Roumania, 
83-92. 

American  Jewish  Historical  So- 
ciety, 1  (note). 

American  Jewish  Historical  So- 
ciety, Publications  of,  ref.  to, 
3  (note),  4  (note),  6  (note), 
21  (note),  41  (note),  80 
(note),  89. 

"  American  Jewish  Year  Books," 
ref.  to,  4  (note),  6  (note),  78 
(note),  80  (note),  82  (note), 
83  (note),  116,  131. 

"  American  Law  Review,"  ref.  to, 
6  (note). 

"  American  Progress  in  Jurispru- 
dence"  (Field),  quoted,  6 
(note). 

American  Roumanian  Committee, 
24. 

American  Roumanian  Society,   11. 

"American   Spirit,  The"    (Straus), 

cited,  5   (note), 
ref.  to,  94   (note). 

Andrassy,  Count  Gyula,  44,  50,  51, 
64,  66,  120,  121. 


155 


156 


American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 


Anglo-Jewish    Association,    22,    29, 

34,  39,  45  and    (note),  46,  93, 

137. 
"  Annales  du  Se"nat  de  la  Chambre 

des      Deputes,"       quoted,       54 

(note). 
Astruc,    Chief    Rabbi    Elie-Aristide, 

29,   30. 
Argyle,   Duke  of,   ref.   to   work  by, 

49    (note). 
"  Around    the   World   with   General 

Grant"     (Young),    ref.    to,    49 

(note). 
"  Aus  dem  Leben  Kb'nigs  Karls  von 

Rumanien  "   (ed.  S.  Whitman), 

alluded  to,  3  (note),  47  (note), 

76  (note), 
quoted,   75. 
ref.  to,  16   (note), 
cited,  74. 
Austria-Hungary,  treatment  of  Jews 

by,  4   (note), 
and  the  Jewish  question  in  Rou- 

mania  and  the  Balkan   States, 

19,  20,  51,  76  (note),  102,  110, 

125,  126,  134,  142,  144. 
champions  religious  liberty  at  the 

Congress  of  Berlin,  44,  64. 
and   the   Jewish   question   at  the 

Congress    of    Berlin,    50,    108, 

115. 
Austro-Prussian   War    of    1866,    48 

(note). 

Balkan    States,   Congress   of  Berlin 
decrees    establishment     of    re- 
ligious liberty  in,   ix,  95,   121, 
122. 
disabilities  and  persecution  of  the 

Jews  In,  1,  2,  85. 
Jewish  question  in,  and  the  Con- 
gress of  Berlin,  54    (note), 
and   the   Balkan   Wars    of    1912- 

1913,   83-92,   93-94. 
See  also  under :   Bulgaria ;   Dan- 
ubian    Principalities ;    Greece ; 
Montenegro ;    Roumania  ;    Ser- 
bia. 
"Balkans,   The"    (Sloane),   alluded 

to,  80   (note). 

"  Balkan  Wars  and  the  Jews,"  ref. 
to,    80    (note). 


Balkan  Wars  of  1912-1913,  and  the 
Jewish  question  in  the  Balkan 
States,  83-92,  93-94. 

Bamberger,    Leopold,    27. 

Bamberger,  Ludwig,   16,   56   (note). 

Bancroft,    George,    21. 

Bayard,  Thomas  F.,  quoted,  5 
(note). 

"  Beaconsfleld  "  (Brandes),  alluded 
to,  57  (note). 

"  Beaconsfield "  (Froude),  alluded 
to,  57  (note). 

Beaconsfield,  Lord  (Benjamin  Dis- 
raeli), 24,  41,  45  and  (note), 
46,  51,  53  (note),  56  (note), 
57  (note),  60  (note),  66,  71 
and  (note),  121. 

Beck,  Dr.  M.,  82. 

Belgium,  and  the  Jewish  question 
in  the  Balkan  States,  102. 

Benisch,    Dr.    A.,    12    (note). 

Bennet,  William  S.,  83. 

Berlin,  Congress  of,  ix,  1,  39,  40- 
74,  75,  76  (note),  77,  82,  85, 
95,  120,  135. 

Memorial    of    Alliance    Israelite 
TJniverselle  to,   105-107. 

Berlin,  Treaty  of,  24,  42,  79,  80, 
81,  85,  93,  94,  108,  112,  114, 
115,  128,  129,  131,  133,  134, 
137,  140,  141,  142,  143,  144, 
145,  146. 

"Berliner  Kongress,  Der "  (Milo- 
bar),  alluded  to,  48  (note). 

Bessarabia,    52,   65,    66. 

"Bismarck"  (Hahn),  ref.  to,  49 
(note),  54  (note),  60  (note). 

Bismarck,  Prince  [Otto  von],  35 
and  (note),  40,  46,  47,  50,  51 
and  (note),  52,  53  (note),  55 
(note),  56  and  (note),  59 
(note),  60,  61,  63,  64,  65,  66, 
67,  69,  71,  75,  76  (note),  120, 
121. 

Elaine,  [James  G.],  dispatch  to 
Charles  Emory  Smith,  quoted, 
113. 

Bleichroeder,  Baron  Gerson  von,  47 
and  (note),  48  (note),  50,  51, 
52,  55  (note),  76  (note). 

Bleichroeder,  Julius,  12  (note),  25, 
28  (note),  47  (note). 


Index. 


157 


Blowitz,     M.     de,     "  Memoirs "     of, 

alluded  to,  49   (note), 
cited,   53    (note). 

Bluntschli,     [Johann    Kaspar],    al- 
luded to,  48   (note),  97. 
work  by,   quoted,  76-77. 

B'nai  B'rith,  Independent  Order 
of,  9,  11,  22. 

Boeresco,  Roumanian  Foreign  Min- 
ister, 124,  126,  128,  142,  150. 

Bolingbroke,   Lord,  quoted,   1. 

Bonflls,    alluded    to,    97. 

Board  of  Delegates  of  American 
Israelites,  3,  8,  11,  12  and 
(note),  22,  26,  28  (note),  31, 
36,  37,  39,  47  (note), 
correspondence  between  Secre- 
tary of  State  Evarts  and,  32- 
34. 

Board  of  Delegates  on  Civil  Rights 
of  the  Union  of  American  He- 
brew Congregations,  81. 

Brandeis,    Alter,    14,    15. 

Brandes,  Georg,  work  by,  alluded 
to,  57  (note). 

Bratiano,    52,    65,    73,    148. 

Brunswik,  B.,  work  by,  alluded 
to,  48  (note). 

Brussels,  Jewish  Conference  at,  in 
behalf  of  Roumanian  Jews,  24, 
25-29,  47  (note). 

Bryce,  [James],  work  by,  alluded 
to,  57  (note). 

Bucharest,  Peace  Conference  at,  of 
1913,  2,  92,  93. 

Buchner,  Adolph,   8,   9,    12    (note). 

Buckle.  See  Monypenny  and 
Buckle. 

Bulgaria,    disabilities    and    persecu- 
tions of  the  Jews  in,  2,  107. 
Congress    of    Berlin    and    estab- 
lishment   of    religious    liberty 
in,    42,    53-55,    56,    57,    58,    59, 
61,    65,   68,   69-70,    71,   92. 
status  of  Jews  in,  after  the  Con- 
gress of  Berlin,  73,   74,   78-79, 
92,   93. 

United    States   and   religious   lib- 
erty in,  91. 

"Bulgaria  and  Her  People"  (Mon- 
roe), quoted,  79. 

"  Bulgaria,  La"  (Chaunier),  al- 
luded to,  79  (note). 


"  Bulletin  de  1'Alliance  Israelite," 
ref.  to,  149. 

"  Bulletin "  of  the  New  York  Pub- 
lic Library,  alluded  to,  49 
(note). 

Biilow,  Baron  Bernhard  von,  35 
and  (note),  44  (note),  49,  51, 
65,  121. 

Buzeo,  Roumania,  15,  19. 

Cairoli,    Signer,    126,   144. 

"  Cambridge  Essays  for  1856,"  al- 
luded to,  55  (note). 

Caradja,  John,  Code  of,  116. 

Carathe"odory  Pasha,  58,  60,  61. 
work  by,  alluded  to,  48  (note). 

"  Career  and  Correspondence  of  Sir 
William  White"  (Edwards), 
ref.  to,  78  (note). 

"  Carte  Comm6rciale  de  la  Bul- 
garie,"  ref.  to,  78-79. 

Casserly,    Senator,    11. 

Castelar,  Emilio,  ref.  to  work  by, 
7  (note). 

"  Century  Magazine,"  ref.  to,  7 
(note),  57  (note). 

"  Ces  ques  les  Juifs  Roumains 
doivent  a  la  Prusse  "  (alluded 
to),  76  (note). 

Chandler,  Hon.  Walter  M.,  speech 
in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives on  "  The  Jews  of  Rou- 
mania and  the  Treaty  of  Ber- 
lin," 80  (note),  83,  114-137. 

Charles,  King,  of  Roumania,  2,  13, 
14,  15,  17,  74,  75,  76  (note). 

Charles,  Prince,  of  Roumania.  See 
Charles,  King,  of  Roumania. 

Chaunier,  work  by,  alluded  to,  79 
(note). 

"  Church  and  State  in  the  United 
States"  (Schaff),  alluded  to, 
6  (note). 

"  Cinquante  ans  d'histoire.  L' Al- 
liance Israelite  Universelle, 
1860-1910"  (Leven),  alluded 
to,  34. 

"Civil  Disabilities  of  the  Jews" 
(Macaulay),  alluded  to,  7 
(note). 

Clapp,   Moses  E.,   83. 

Clarendon,    Lord,    151. 

Code  Cahmachi,   116. 


158 


American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 


Cogalniceanu     (Kogalniceano),     M., 

36,  38,  52,  65,   73,   101,   117. 
Cole,   Senator,   11. 
"  Congres   de   Berlin,    Le,"   ref.    to, 

48    (note). 
"  Congres   de   Berlin,   Le "    (French 

Yellow    Book,    1886),    alluded 

to,  48   (note), 
ref.   to,   72    (note). 
Congress,  and  the  Jewish  question 

in   Roumanla,   8-9,    16,   17,   83, 

114-115. 
"  Congressional    Globe,"    ref.    to,    8 

(note),  16   (note). 
"  Congressional  Record,"  alluded  to, 

6   (note). 

ref.  to,  83  (note),  114  (note). 
Constantinople,    Conference   of,    29, 

30,   43,   49,   50,    118,    119,    139, 

140. 
appealed   to   on   behalf   of   Jews, 

29,    30,    34,    102-105. 
"Contemporary     France"      (Hano- 

taux),   ref.    to,    48    (note),    54 

(note). 
Conybeare,   F.  C.,  ref.  to  work  by, 

78   (note). 

alluded  to,  83  (note). 
Cortelyou,  George  B.,  82. 
Corti,    Count.    121. 
Costaforo,   Roumanian   premier,  26. 
Cowen,    E[lfrida],    alluded    to,    28 

(note). 

Cox,   Samuel  S.,  16,  17. 
Cre"mieux,     Adolphe,     2,     7,     9,     12 

(note),  22,  25,  26,  29,  30,  39, 

44,   47,   54    (note). 
Curtin,  U.  S.  Minister  at  St.  Peters- 
burg,  112. 

Damascus,    United    States    protests 

against  persecution  of  Jews  in, 

4,  5,  88,  94. 
Dan   II,    100. 
Danubian      Principalities,      Jewish 

question   in,    102,    103. 
See  also  under  Balkan   States. 
Davis,  Israel,  work  by,  alluded  to, 

78    (note), 
de    Bar,    L.,    ref.    to    work    by,    77 

(note). 


"  Debats  parlementatres,"  ref.  to, 
4  (note). 

Decazes,   Duke,   35. 

Decebalus,  100. 

"  Declaration  of  Rights  of  Man  and 
of  Citizens,  The"  (Farrand), 
alluded  to,  7  (note). 

de  Hirsch,  Baron,  39. 

De  Mouy,  Charles,  ref.  to  work  by, 
48  (note). 

"  Denkrede    tiber    Benj.    F.    Peixot- 
to"     (Stern),     alluded     to,     9 
(note),   12,   22. 
ref.  to,  25   (note). 

Derby,  Earl  of   (Lord  Stanley),  al- 
luded to,  3   (note), 
quoted,  34,  104,  112. 

Derby,   Lord.     See  Derby,   Earl  of. 

De"renbourg,  Joseph,  30. 

Dgsprez,    Felix,    57,    68,    69,    121. 

Deutsch,    Prof.    Gotthard,    alluded 

to,   28    (note), 
ref.  to,  56   (note). 

de    Worms,     Baron     Henry     (Lord 
Pirbright),     29,     30,     45     and 
(note),     46,     48      (note),     53 
(note),  77. 
ref.  to  work  by,  59   (note). 

"Dictionary  of  National  Biog- 
raphy," ref.  to,  45  (note). 

"  Digest  of  International  Law " 
(Moore),  ref.  to,  60  (note). 

Diplomatic  correspondence  of  the 
United  States,  Jews  in,  4-5, 
13,  17,  18,  19,  20,  21,  30,  31, 
34,  36-38,  41-42,  43,  71-72,  80, 
81,  82,  84-92,  108-114,  133-134. 

"  Diplomatist,  A  ;  Nationalism  and 
the  War  in  the  Near  East," 
alluded  to,  80  (note). 

Disabilities,  Jewish,  in  the  Balkan 
States,  1,  2-3,  23,  37,  62,  63, 
78,  79,  87,  95,  98,  99,  102,  103, 
104,  105,  106,  108,  109,  110, 
111,  112,  115,  116,  117,  119, 
120,  122,  123,  124,  127,  128, 
129-131,  132,  134,  135,  139, 
140,  141,  145,  146,  147,  148, 
149,  150,  151,  152. 
See  also  under :  Bulgaria,  Greece, 
Montenegro,  Roumania,  Serbia. 


Index. 


159 


Disraeli,  Benjamin.  See  Beacons- 
field,  Lord. 

"  Doctrine  of  Intervention,  The " 
(Hodges),  cited,  94. 

D'Oubril,  Paul,  121. 

Dufaure,  M.,   7? 

Duggan,  S.  P.,  work  by,  alluded  to, 
49  (note). 

"Eastern  Question,  The"  (Dug- 
gan). alluded  to,  49  (note). 

"Eastern  Question,  The"  (Duke  of 
Argyle),  ref.  to,  49  (note). 

Eastern  Roumelia.  See  Roumelia, 
Eastern. 

Edwards,  work  by,  alluded  to,  78 
(note). 

"  Elements  of  International  Law  " 
(Wheaton),  ref.  to,  94  (note). 

"  Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  ref.  to, 
48  (note),  56  (note). 

Enfield,   Lord,   139. 

England  and  the  Jewish  question 
in  Roumania  and  the  Balkan 
States,  2,  19,  20,  21,  34,  43, 
49,  55  (note),  74,  76  (note), 
77,  79,  81,  89,  90,  91,  93,  102, 
104,  110,  125,  126,  134,  142, 
144. 

insists  on  equal  rights  for  Eng- 
lish Jews  in  Switzerland,  3 
(note). 

and  the  Jewish  question  at  the 
Congress  of  Berlin,  46,  56 
(note),  57  (note),  108,  115. 
champions  religious  liberty  at 
the  Congress  of  Berlin,  53 
(note),  62,  66,  75. 

"  England's    Policy    in    the    East  '• 
(de    Worms),    alluded    to,    45 
(note), 
ref.  to,  59  (note). 

English  Jewish  Year  Book  for  1903, 
alluded  to,  45  (note). 

"  Erklarung  der  Menschen — und 
Burgerrechte,  Die"  (Jellinek), 
alluded  to,  7  (note). 

"  Essays  in  Jurisprudence  and 
Ethics,"  alluded  to,  7  (note). 

"  Essays  on  Some  Disputed  Ques- 
tions in  Modern  International 


Law"    (Lawrence),  alluded  to, 

94    (note). 

"  Essentials  of  International  Pub- 
lic Law"  (Hershey),  ref.  to, 

97  (note). 
"  European  Concert  in  the  Eastern 

Question"     (Holland),    alluded 

to,   48    (note). 
Evarts,  William  M.,  correspondence 

relating  to  Jews  in  the  Balkan 

States,   32-34,   36-38. 

Farrand,  M.,  work  by,  alluded  to, 
7  (note). 

Fay,   [Theodore],  3. 

Ferrero,  Prof.,  alluded  to,  48 
(note). 

Field,  David  Dudley,  work  by, 
quoted,  6  (note). 

"  Final    Report   of   Board   of   Dele- 
gates of  American   Israelites," 
ref.  to,  25   (note), 
alluded  to,  39   (note). 

Fish,  Hamilton,  diplomatic  corre- 
spondence of,  relating  to  Jews 
in  Roumania,  16,  17,  18,  19, 
20,  21,  31,  110,  112-113. 

Fluegel,  Rabbi  Maurice,  26. 

"  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States,  1867,"  ref.  to,  3  (note). 

"  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States,  1872,"  ref.  to,  20 
(note),  21  (note),  110,  113. 

"  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States,  1877,"  ref.  to,  31 
(note). 

"Foreign  Relations  [of  the  United 
States],  1878,"  ref.  to,  41 
(note),  42  (note),  43  (note), 
49  (note),  57  (note),  71. 

"  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States,  1880,"  ref.  to,  75 
(note),  76  (note). 

"  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States,  1891,"  quoted,  113. 

"Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States,  1902,"  ref.  to,  80 
(note). 

Forsyth,  John,  diplomatic  corre- 
spondence of,  on  behalf  of 
Jews  of  Damascus,  4-5,  94. 


160 


American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 


Prance,  and  the  Jewish  question  in 
Roumania  and  the  Balkan 
States,  2,  16,  19,  21,  43,  49, 
55  (note),  74,  76  (note),  81, 
82  (note),  102,  110,  125,  126, 
134,  142,  144. 

insists    on    equal    treatment    for 
French    Jews    in    Switzerland, 
3  (note),  4  (note). 
influence  of  United  States  on  re- 
ligious liberty   in,   7    (note). 
and  the  emancipation  of  Jews  in 

the  Orient,  36. 

and  the  Jewish  question  at  the 
Congress  of  Berlin,  53  and 
(note) -55  (note),  70-71,  108, 
115. 

champions  religious  liberty  at 
the  Congress  of  Berlin,  60,  61, 
63,  65,  66,  70-71,  151. 

Franchi,  Cardinal,  Papal  Secretary 
of  State,  72. 

Franco,  M.,  on  the  status  of  the 
Jews  of  Bulgaria,  78-79. 

Freeman,  Edward  A.,  alluded  to, 
57  (note). 

Freidus,  A.  S.,  alluded  to,  28 
(note). 

French    Yellow    Books,    alluded    to, 

48  (note),  78  (note), 
ref.  to,  72  (note). 

Friedenberg,  Albert  M.,  ix. 
alluded  to,  28   (note). 

Friedenwald,  Dr.  Herbert,  corre- 
spondence relating  to  Jewish 
question  in  Roumania.  84,  86- 
89. 

Froude,  [James  A.],  work  by,  al- 
luded to,  57  (note). 

"  Fiirst  Bismarck's  Verhaltnlss  zum 
Glauben  insbesondere  zum 
Judenthum,"  alluded  to,  56 
(note). 

Gaster,  Dr.  Moses,  82. 

German  Union  of  Jewish  Congrega- 
tions, 71. 

Germany,  and  the  Jewish  question 
in  Roumania  and  the  Balkan 
States,  19,  21,  35,  43  and 
(note),  44,  46,  49,  51,  55 
(note),  74,  76  (note),  81,  102, 
110,  125,  126,  134,  142,  144. 


and  the  Jewish  question  at  the 
Congress  of  Berlin,  46,  47  and 
(note),  51  and  (note),  53 
(note),  55  (note),  59  (note), 
76  (note),  108,  115. 
champions  religious  liberty  at  the 
Congress  of  Berlin,  61,  64,  66, 
67,  75. 

"Geschichte  der  Serben "  (Jiri- 
cek),  alluded  to,  80  (note). 

"  Geschichtskalender  "  ("  Schult- 
hess  "),  ref.  to,  149. 

Ghika,  Gregory,  117,  118,  119,  122, 
127,  139,  145. 

Giurgewo,  Roumania,  36,  37,   38. 

Gladstone,  [William  B.],  56  (note), 
57  (note),  71  (note). 

Gloucester,  Bishop  of,  16. 

Godefroi,  Michael  H.,  3   (note). 

Goldfogle,  Henry  M.,  83. 

Goldschlager,  David,   14,   15. 

Goldsmid,  of  Vienna,  22. 

Goldsmid,  Sir  Francis,  2,  12  (note), 
15  (note),  16,  22,  24,  25,  26, 
28  (note). 

Gorchakov,  Prince.  See  Gortscha- 
koff,  Prince. 

Gortschakoff  (Gorchakov),  Prince, 
62,  63,  64,  66,  69,  82,  121,  151. 

Grant,  President  U[lysses]  S.,  and 
the  Jewish  question  in  Rou- 
mania, 8,  9,  12-13,  110,  112. 

Granville,  Earl  of,  16,  21,  146. 

Granville,  Lord.  See  Granville, 
Earl  of. 

Green,  J.,  English  consul  at  Bucha- 
rest, 19. 

Great  Britain.     See  England. 

"  Great  Britain,  Foreign  Office : 
Correspondence  relating  to  the 

Congress      of      Berlin " 

ref.  to,  48   (note). 

"  Great  Britain,  Parliamentary  Pa- 
pers," ref.  to,  78  (note). 

Great  Britain,  State  Papers,  ref.  to, 

3   (note),  15   (note), 
alluded  to,  16   (note),  20   (note). 

Greece  protests  against  persecution 

of  Jews  in  Roumania,  19,  110. 

position  of  the   Jews  in,  87,  92, 

93. 

United    States   and   religious   lib- 
erty in,  91. 


Index. 


161 


Greek  Catholic  Church,  85,  87, 

Grey,  Sir  Edward,  and  memoran- 
dum prepared  by  English  Jews 
on  the  treaty  rights  of  the 
Jews  of  Roumania,  89,  93,  94, 
137-153. 

Guedemann,  Dr.  Moritz,  47. 

"  Gunton's  Magazine,"  ref.  to,  80 
(note). 

"  Ha-Carmel,"  ref.  to,  28   (note). 

Hahn,  ref.  to  work  by,  49  (note), 
54  (note),  60  (note). 

Hall,  alluded  to,  96,  97. 

Hallgarten,    Adolph,    11. 

Hanotaux,  ref.  to  work  by,  48 
(note),  54  (note). 

Hansard's  Debates,  ref.  to,  3 
(note),  15  (note),  16  (note), 
71  (note). 

Harrison,  President  [Benjamin], 
and  the  persecution  of  the 
Jews  in  Russia,  85,  112,  113. 

Hay,  John,   111. 

Roumanian  Note  of,  2,  80-82,  86, 
87,    94,    133-134. 

Haymerle,   Baron   von,   121. 

Hearings  before  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  Dec.  11, 
1911,  on  "Termination  of  the 
Treaty  of  1832  between  the 
United  States  and  Russia,"  al- 
luded to,  6  (note). 

"Hebrews  in  America"  (Markens), 
alluded  to,  9  (note). 

Hellman,  George  S.,  ref.  to,  48 
(note). 

Hershey,  work  by,  ref.  to,  97 
(note). 

"  Histoire  des  Israelites  roumains 
et  le  droit  d'intervention " 
(Stambler),  alluded  to,  77 
(note),  78  (note). 

"  History  of  the  Alliance  Israelite 
Universelle "  (Leven),  alluded 
to,  25  (note),  29  (note). 

"  History  of  the  Jews  in  America  " 
(Wiernik),  ref.  to,  80  (note). 

Hodges,   H.   C.,  work  by,  cited,  94  ; 
quoted,  95  and   (note),  96  and 
(note),  97  and  (note). 
12 


Hohenlohe-Schillingsfiirst,      Prince, 

51  and   (note),  121. 
"  Memoirs "    of,    alluded    to,    47 

(note). 

ref.  to,  51    (note), 
quoted,    62    (note),    75    (note) -76 
(note). 

Holland  rebukes  Switzerland  for 
anti-Jewish  discriminations,  3 
(note). 

and  the  Jewish  question  in  Rou- 
mania and  the  Balkan  States, 
16  (note),  102. 

Holland,  T.  E.,  work  by,  alluded  to, 
48  (note). 

Horowitz,  Leon,  work  by,  alluded 
to,  28  (note). 

House  Executive  Documents,  1872, 
42d  Congress,  2d  Session,  No. 
318,  ref.  to,  17  (note). 

House  of  Commons,  Great  Britain. 
See  Parliament,  British. 

House  of  Representatives,  Commit- 
tee on  Foreign  Affairs  of,  hear- 
ings   on    "  The    Jews    of    Rou- 
mania,"  83. 
See  also  Congress. 

Huhner,  Leon,  alluded  to,  28 
(note). 

"  Humanitarian  Diplomacy  of  the 
United  States"  (Straus),  ref. 
to,  5  (note),  94  (note). 

Hungary.      See   Austria-Hungary. 

Illoria,  Italian  consul  at  Bucharest, 
19. 

Immigration  of  Roumanian  Jews,  to 
the  United    States,   25,   26,    27 
and    (note) -28    (note),   29,   80, 
134,  149. 
to  England,   149. 

"  International        Law "        (Oppen- 
heim),     quoted,     95     (note) -96 
(note), 
ref.  to,   97    (note). 

"  International  Law  and  the  Dis- 
criminations Practiced  by  Rus- 
sia under  the  Treaty  of  1832  " 
(Kuhn),  quoted,  4  (note). 

Intervention,  doctrine  of,  in  behalf 
of  the  persecuted,  94,  95,  96 
and  (note),  97  (note). 


162 


American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 


Isaacs,     Lewis    M.,     1     (note),     12 

(note). 
Isaacs,  Myer  S.,   12    (note),  24,  27 

(note),   28    (note),   31,  33,   39. 
Isidor,  Chief  Rabbi  Lazard,  29. 
Ismail,  Roumania,   14,   15. 
"  Israelitische  Wochenschrift,"    ref. 

to,    44    (note),    46,    47    (note), 

54   (note). 

alluded  to,   56    (note). 
Italy,   and   the   Jewish   question   in 

Roumania  and  the  Balkans,  16, 

19,   35,   43,   44,   49,   55    (note), 

76    (note),   81,   102,    110,    125, 

126,   134,   142,   144. 
and   the   Jewish   question   at   the 

Congress     of     Berlin,     51,     53 

(note),   108,   115. 
champions  religious  liberty  at  the 

Congress  of  Berlin,  64,  66. 

Jacobs,  Rev.  Henry  S.,  39. 

Jay,   John,   20. 

Jellinek,  George,  work  by,  alluded 
to,  7  (note). 

"  Jewish     Chronicle "     of     London, 

quoted,  24. 

ref.  to,  39  (note),  44  (note),  45 
(note),  47  (note),  71  (note), 
74  (note),  76  (note),  77 
(note),  93  (note). 

"  Jewish   Encyclopedia,"    ref.    to,    3 

(note),   44    (note),   47    (note), 

56      (note),      57      (note),      78 

(note),  79   (note). 

alluded   to,  9    (note),   45    (note), 

48    (note). 
cited,   76    (note). 

"  Jewish  Immigrants — Report  of  a 
Special  Committee  of  the  Na- 
tional Jewish  Immigration 
Council  .  .  .  ."  cited,  83 
(note). 

"  Jewish  Immigration  to  the  United 
States  from  1881  to  1910" 
(Joseph),  cited,  82. 

"  Jewish     Times,"     ref.     to,     7,     8 
(note),    9   and    (note),    11,    16 
(note),   24    (note),   25    (note), 
26   (note),  29   (note), 
alluded  to,   12,  39   (note). 


"  Jewish      World,"      ref.      to,      48 

(note). 

"  Jews  in  the  Diplomatic  Cor- 
respondence of  the  United 

States"    (Adler),  alluded  to,  4 

(note), 
ref.  to,  41. 
"  Jews        in        Roumania,        The " 

(Davis),  alluded  to,  78  (note). 
"  Jews  in  Roumania,  The.     Account 

of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Trial 

of  the  Jews  at  Busen,"  alluded 

to,  15   (note). 
"  Jews  of  Roumania  and  the  Treaty 

of     Berlin,"     speech     by     Hon. 

Walter     M.     Chandler     in     the 

House   of    Representatives,    83, 

114-137. 
Jiricek,    work    by,    alluded    to,    80 

(note). 

Joseph,  Samuel,  work  by,  cited,  82. 
"  Journal     du     droit     international 

prive","   ref.   to,   150. 
"  Journal    officiel   de   la   Rgpublique 

Frangaise,"  ref.  to,   72    (note), 
alluded  to,  76   (note). 
"  Judaeans,    The,"    alluded    to,    48 

(note). 
"  Juden     in     Bulgarien "     (Segall), 

ref.  to,  79    (note). 
"Juden   in   Rumanien,    Die"    (Laz- 

are),  alluded  to,   78    (note). 
"  Judenfrage   in   den  Donauftirsten- 

thtimern,  Die"   (Levy),  alluded 

to,  3   (note). 
"  Julfs   en   Roumanie"    (Sincerus), 

alluded  to,  78,  148. 
ref.  to,  117. 

Kallimachor,   Code  of,   116. 

Kanitz,  ref.  to  work  by,  80  (note). 

Kann,  M.,  47,  50,  51. 

Karl  Anton,  Prince,  74,  75. 

Karolyi,  Baron,  121. 

Kasson,  John  A.,  diplomatic  cor- 
respondence of,  and  the  Jews 
of  Roumania,  41,  42,  43,  71, 
72,  85. 

Kayserling,  Dr.  M[yer],  ref.  to,  3 
(note). 


Index. 


163 


"  Kirchlich-religiose  Leben  bei  den 
Serben,  Das"  (Razhichlich), 
alluded  to,  79  (note). 

Kogalnlceano,  M.    See  Cogalinceanu. 

Kohler,  Max  J.,  ref.  to  work  by,  6 
(note). 

Kohler,  Max  J.,  and  Wolf,  Simon, 
on  "  American  Contributions 
toward  the  Removal  of  Jewish 
Disabilities  in  the  Balkan 
States,  ix. 

Kompert,  Dr.  Leopold,  25. 

Konigswarter,  Baron  Moritz  von, 
22,  28  (note). 

Krauskopf,  Rev.  Dr.  Joseph,  al- 
luded to,  80  (note). 

Kristeller,  Dr.  Samuel,  29. 

Kuhn,  Arthur  K.,  work  by,  cited,  4 

(note), 
alluded  to,  28   (note). 

Kuranda,  Dr.  Ignaz,  44. 

Landsberg,  Dr.,   30. 

Lasker,  Eduard,  16,  43  and  (note), 

44   (note),  46,  56   (note). 
Launay,   Count  de,   51,   64,   68,   69, 

121. 

Laurence,    J.    M.,   29. 
"  Law  of  Nations  "  (Twiss),  ref.  to, 

48    (note). 
Lawrence,   T.   J.,   work  by,   alluded 

to,  94    (note). 
Lazare,    work    by,    alluded    to,    78 

(note). 
Lazarus,    Emma,    ref.    to    work    by, 

57    (note). 
Lazarus,    Prof.    Moritz,    22,    25,    28 

(note). 
Le    Souard,    G.,    French    consul    at 

Bucharest,  19. 

Lesseps,   Ferdinand  de,  4    (note). 
Leven,  Narcisse,  12   (note),  22,  30. 
work   by,   alluded   to,    25    (note), 

29    (note),   34,   48,   50,   70,   74. 
ref.  to,  71. 
quoted,  73. 
L6vy,  Arthur,  29. 
Levy,  Bernard,  work  by,  alluded  to, 

3    (note). 

"  Life  and  Letters  of  Bayard  Tay- 
lor, ref.  to,  42   (note). 
Lilienthal,  Dr.  Max,  11. 


Lippe,    Dr.   C.,   82. 

"  List  of  Works  Relating  to  the 
History  and  Condition  of  the 
Jews  in  Various  Countries " 
(Freidus),  ref.  to,  28  (note). 

"  List  of  Works  Relating  to  the 
Near  Eastern  Question  and  the 
P.alkan  States,"  alluded  to,  49 
(note). 

Littauer,  Hon.  Lucius  N.,  81. 

Loeb,  Isidore,  12  (note). 

work  by,  alluded  to,  3  (note),  30. 
ref.  to,  16   (note),  34,  35   (note), 
50,   116,    117. 

Loewy,  A[lbert],  22,  30. 

See  also  Marks,  D.  W.,  and  L5wy, 
Albert. 

London,  peace  conference  in,  84, 
85,  86,  88,  90,  91. 

London  Board  of  Deputies  of  Brit- 
ish Jews,  45,  46,  93,  137. 

London  Roumanian  Committee,   24. 

Ludwig,   King  of  Hungary,   100. 

Lupashku,  Prefect,  37. 

Luzzatti,   Signor,  88. 

Macaulay,  [Thomas  Babington], 
work  by,  alluded  to,  7  (note). 

Majoresco,  M.,  93. 

Mannheimer,  Prof.  S.,  ref.  to,  56 
(note). 

Markens,  [Isaac],  work  by,  alluded 
to,  9  (note). 

Marks,    D.    W.,    and   Lowy,    Albert, 
work  by,  alluded  to,  3   (note), 
ref.  to,  24. 

Marsh,  Mr.,  43. 

Marshall,   Louis,    1    (note). 

correspondence  relating  to  the 
Jewish  question  in  Roumania, 
83,  84-86. 

Martens,   de,    work   by,   ref.    to,   49 

(note), 
alluded  to,  97. 

Marx,  Prof.  Alexander,  ix. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan,  alluded  to,  109. 

Maynard,  Horace,  diplomatic  cor- 
respondence of,  relating  to  the 
Jews  in  the  Balkan  States,  30, 
31,  33-34. 


164 


American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 


Melegari,  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs of  Italy,  35. 

"  Memoir     of     Sir     Francis     Henry 
Goldsmid"  (Marks  and  Lowy), 
alluded  to,  3   (note), 
ref.  to,  24. 

"  Memoirs  of  David  Blaustein,"  ref. 
to,  78  (note). 

"  Memoirs  of  M.  de  Blowitz,"  al- 
luded to,  49  (note). 

Memorial  of  Alliance  Israelite  Uni- 
verselle  to  the  Congress  of  Ber- 
lin, 44,  105-107. 

Memorial  on  behalf  of  Jews  pre- 
sented to  the  Constantinople 
Conference  of  1877,  30,  31,  34, 
35,  102-105. 

"Menorah,  The,"  ref.  to,  9   (note), 

15    (note), 
cited,  12. 

"  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Pres- 
idents "  (Richardson),  ref.  to, 
9  (note),  17  (note). 

Metternich,   Prince,  4    (note). 

Milan,  Prince,  67. 

Milobar,  work  by,  alluded  to,  48 
(note). 

Moldavia,  the  Jewish  question  in, 
2,  20,  37,  102,  103,  104,  112, 
117-118,  138,  139. 

Monize,  Alexander,   116. 

Monroe,  W.  S.,  work  by,  quoted,  79. 

Monteflore,  J.  M.,  45. 

Monteflore,  Sir  Moses,  2,  12  (note), 
22,  48  (note). 

Montenegro,  Congress  of  Berlin  de- 
crees   establishment    of    relig- 
ious liberty  in,  68,  70,  71,  92, 
122,    135. 
status    of    Jews    in,     after     the 

Treaty   of  Berlin,    79,   93. 
United   States   and   religious   lib- 
erty in,  91. 

Moore,  J.  Hampton,  83. 

Moore,    J[ohn]    Bfassett],    ref.    to 

work  by,  60    (note), 
correspondence    relating    to    the 
Jewish   question   in   Roumania, 
84,   89-92,   94. 

Morocco,  United  States  helps  Jews 
in,  88. 


Morris,  Mr.,  U.  S.  Minister  at  Con- 
stantinople, 3. 

Mtinster,   Count,    121. 

"  My  First  Years  as  a  Frenchwo- 
man "  (Waddington),  ref.  to, 
49  (note),  53  (note). 

"My  Recollections"  (Princess  Rad- 
ziwill),  quoted,  75  (note). 

Napoleon  III,  protests  against  per- 
secution of  Jews  in  Roumania, 
2-3. 

"  National     Review,"     ref.     to,     78 
(note), 
alluded  to,  83   (note). 

Neanes,  Greek  consul  at  Bucharest, 
19. 

Netter,  Charles,  12  (note),  30,  35, 
36,  47,  48  (note),  50,  65,  72, 
73. 

"  Neueste  Geschichte  des  jtidischen 
Volkes"  (Philippson),  ref.  to, 
79  (note). 

"  Nouveau  Receuil  G6n6ral  "  (Mar- 
tens), ref.  to,  49  (note). 

"  Observations  concernant  la  preuve 
de  la  nationality  et  1'expulsion 
par  le  gouvernement  roumains 
d'Israe"lites  ne"s  et  domicilie"s 
en  Roumanie "  (de  Bar),  ref. 
to,  77  (note). 

"  Official  Documents  extracted  from 
the  Diplomatic  Correspondence 
of  2/14  September,  1878, 
17/29  July,  1880,"  ref.  to,  142. 

Oppenheim,  work  by,  cited,  95  and 
(note),  96  (note),  97  (note). 

Order  Zion,  Roumanian  society,  22, 
23. 

Orloff,  Prince,  35. 

Otis,   James,   alluded  to,   109. 

Owens,  O.  L.,  work  by,  alluded  to, 
60  (note). 

Paris,  Convention  of,  98,  102,  103, 
105,  118,  119,  122,  127,  137, 
138-140,  141,  150. 

Paris,  international  Jewish  confer- 
ence at,  in  1876,  29-36,  43,  45 
(note). 


Index. 


165 


memorializes  Constantinople  Con- 
ference on  behalf  of  Jews  of 
Eastern  Europe,  30,  31,  34,  35, 
102-105. 

Paris,  international  Jewish  Confer- 
ence at,  in  1878,  39. 

Paris,   Treaty  of,   102. 

Parliament,  British,  and  the  Jewish 
question  in  Roumania,  15 
(note),  16,  139. 

"  Passport  Question,  The,"  ref.  to, 
6  (note). 

Peixotto,  Benjamin  F.,  1,  2,  7 
(note),  9-15,  17-24,  25,  26,  27, 
39. 

"  Persecutions  of  the  Jews  in  Rou- 
mania, The"  (Schloss),  al- 
luded to,  78  (note). 

Petition  of  Roumanian  Jews  to 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  98-101. 

"  Phases  in  the  History  of  Relig- 
ious Liberty  in  America  with 
Special  Reference  to  the  Jews  " 
(Kohler),  ref.  to,  6  (note). 

Philippson,  M.,  ref.  to  work  by,  79 
(note). 

Phillimore,  work  by,  cited,  96 
(note). 

Pirbright,  Lord.  See  de  Worms, 
Baron  Henry. 

Plotke,  work  by,  alluded  to,  78 
(note). 

Poindexter,   Miles,   83. 

Pollock,  Sir  Frederick,  work  by,  al- 
luded to,  7  (note). 

Powderly,  T.  V.,  Commissioner 
General  of  immigration,  109. 

"  Primacy  of  the  Great  Powers, 
The"  (Lawrence),  alluded  to, 
94  (note). 

"  Protection  of  American  Foreign 
Missionaries  by  the  United 
States"  (Owens),  alluded  to, 
60  (note). 

"  Protestant  Church  and  Religious 
Liberty  in  France"  (Wadding- 
ton),  alluded  to,  55  (note). 

"  Protocols  of  the  Berlin  Con- 
gress," ref.  to,  152. 

"  Question  Israelite  en  Roumanie, 
La"  (Rey),  alluded  to,  78 
(note). 


Rachic,  work  by,  alluded  to,  79 
(note). 

Radziwill.  Princess,  work  by,  quoted, 
75  (note). 

Razhichlich,  work  by,  alluded  to, 
79  (note). 

Reichstag,  German,  and  the  Jewish 
question  in  Roumania,  16,  43, 
44. 

"Religious  Liberty"  (Rufflni),  al- 
luded to,  7  (note). 

"  Religious  Liberty  in  the  United 
States"  (Straus),  quoted,  5 
(note). 

Rgmusat,  M.  de,  21,  30. 

"  Reunion  au  Faveur  des  Israelites 
de  1'Orient,"  ref.  to,  29  (note). 

"  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,"  ref.  to, 
48  (note). 

"  Revue  du  droit  international," 
ref.  to,  77  (note). 

"  Revue  du  droit  international  pub- 
lic," alluded  to,  48  (note). 

Rey,  work  by,  alluded  to,  78. 

Richardson,  ref.  to  work  by,  9 
(note),  17  (note). 

Ristitch,  52,  67,  72. 

Roggenbach,  alluded  to,   51    (note). 

Roosevelt,  President  Theodore,  and 
the  Jewish  question  in  Rou- 
mania, 81,  82,  111-114. 

Root,  Elihu,  alluded  to,  80   (note). 

Rosenbach,  Dr.  A.   S.  W.,  ix. 

Rosenfeld,   Lazarus,    11. 

Rosetti,  M.,  quoted,  128-129,  150. 

Rothschild,  Baron,  28   (note). 

Rothschild,  Lionel  de,  45. 

Roumania,  the  United  States  and 
the  Jewish  question  in,  ix,  1, 
2,  3,  6-24,  25,  26,  27,  28,  30- 
34,  36-38,  39,  41-42,  43,  80,  81, 
82-93,  108-114,  114-115,  133- 
134,  136,  149. 

disabilities  and  persecutions  suf- 
fered by  Jews  in,  2-3,  6,  8, 
14-16,  29,  32,  36,  37,  78,  81, 
87,  88,  95,  99-101,  102,  103, 
104,  105,  106,  107,  108,  109, 
110,  111,  112-113,  115,  116- 
120,  122,  123,  127,  128,  129- 
131,  132,  133,  134,  135,  138, 


166 


American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 


139-140,      141,      145,      146-148, 
149. 

European  Powers  and  the  Jewish 
question  in,  15-21,  24,  32,  34, 
35,  43,  44,  45,  73,  74,  75,  82 
(note),  104,  110. 

Jews  of,  petition  for  civil  and 
political  rights,  25,  28,  98-101. 

three  international  Jewish  con- 
ferences in  behalf  of  Jews  in, 
25-39. 

the  Jewish  question  in,  and  the 
Congress  of  Berlin,  41,  42,  43, 
49,  50,  52,  66,  68,  69,  76 
(note),  95,  108,  114,  151-152. 

Jews  render  patriotic  services  in, 
47  (note),  99,  107. 

Congress  of  Berlin  decrees  estab- 
lishment of  religious  liberty 
in,  65-67,  70,  71,  85,  92,  114, 
122-124,  140-141. 

the  Jewish  question  in,  after  the 
Congress  of  Berlin,  73,  74,  75, 
76  and  (note),  77,  93-94,  95, 
108-114,  124-126,  127,  128, 
129,  135,  136,  137,  142-146, 
148-153. 

speech  of  Hon.  Walter  M.  Chand- 
ler on  the  Jews  of,  and  the 
Treaty  of  Berlin,  83,  114-137. 

memorandum  presented  by  Eng- 
lish Jews  to  Sir  Edward  Grey 
on  the  Treaty  rights  of  the 
Jews  of,  89,  93,  137-153. 

promises  full  rights  to  Bulgarian 
Jews    transferred    to    her,    92, 
.   93. 

and  the  right  of  intervention  in 
behalf  of  persecuted  Jews,  95, 
96. 

"  Roumania   and   America  "    (Horo- 
witz), alluded  to,  28   (note). 
"  Roumania  and  the  Legal   Status 
of    the    Jews    in    Roumania " 
(Bluntschli),  quoted,  76-77. 
"  Roumania  as  a  Persecuting  Pow- 
er "    (Conybeare),    ref.    to,    78 
(note). 

Roumanian  Emigration  Society,  26. 
Roumanian   Note   of   John   Hay,   2, 
80-82,   86,  87,    133-134,   149. 


"  Romanul,"   ref.    to,    128,   150. 

Roumelia,  Eastern,  religious  liberty 
in,  and  the  Congress  of  Ber- 
lin, 42,  55,  56,  58,  59  and 
(note),  60,  61. 

status  of  Jews  in,  after  the  Con- 
gress of  Berlin,  73,  79. 
Jews  persecuted  in,  107. 

"  Royaume  de  Serbie,  Le "  (Rach- 
ic),  alluded  to,  79  (note) -80 
(note). 

Ruffini,  Francesco,  work  by,  al- 
luded to,  7  (note). 

"  Rumanische  Post,"  alluded  to,  12 
(note),  22. 

"  Rumanischen  Juden  unter  dem 
Fiirsten  und  Konig  Karl,  Die" 
(Plotke),  alluded  to,  78  (note). 

Russell,   Lord,  51,  121. 

Russell,   Lord  John,  51. 

Russia,     United     States     abrogates 

treaty  with,  6   (note), 
and  the  Jewish  question  in  Rou- 
mar.ia   and  the  Balkan   States, 
15     (note),     16,     21,     35,     76 
(note),  81,  115,  134,  146. 
position     of     the     Jews     in,     47 

(note),  63,  64,  96,   113. 
and    the   Jewish   question   at   the 
Congress  of  Berlin,  49,  50,  61, 
63,   108. 

attitude  toward  religious  liberty 
at  the  Congress  of  Berlin,  58, 
61,  64,  66-67. 

Russo-Turkish  War,  36,  39,  40,  120. 

Sadullah  Bey,   121. 

St.  Vallier,  de,  50,  70,  121. 

Salisbury,      Lord.      See      Salisbury, 

Marquess   of. 
Salisbury,  Marquess  of,  30,  46,  49, 

56    (note),   58,   59,   60,   61,   62, 

67,  68,  71  and   (note),  77,  121. 
Salonika,  87. 
Salomon,  Barnett  L.,  11. 
San  Stefano,  Treaty  of,  40,  41,  46, 

52,    54    (note),    56    (note),    59 

(note),  61,   120. 
Schaff,    Rev.    Dr.    Philip,    work   by, 

alluded  to,  6   (note). 
Schenck,   Robert  C.,  21. 
Schechter,  Solomon,  82. 


Index. 


167 


Schiff,  Jacob  H.,   1    (note),  39,  81, 

111. 

letter  from  Oscar  S.  Straus  to, 
on  the  Jewish  question  in  Rou- 
mania,  108-111. 

Schlechta,  Austro-Hungarian  con- 
sul at  Bucharest,  19. 

Schloss,  D.  F.,  work  by,  alluded  to, 
78  (note). 

Schouvaloff    (Shuvalov),   Count,    47 

(note),  56,  58,  61,  64,  121. 
work  by,  alluded  to,  48  (note). 

Schulthess,  ref.  to  work  by,  149. 

Schurz,  Carl,  11. 

Schwarzfeld,  Elie,  82. 

ref.  to  work  by,  78   (note). 

Segall,  ref.  to  work  by,  79   (note). 

Seligman,  Isaac,  12   (note),  25,  26. 

Seligman,  Jesse,  11. 

Seligman,  Joseph,  11,  12  (note). 

Seligman,   William,   29,   30. 

Senate,  United  States.  See  Con- 
gress. 

Serbia,  disabilities  and  persecu- 
tions suffered  by  Jews  in,  2,  3, 
29,  31,  34,  63,  102,  103,  105, 
106,  107. 

the  Jewish  question  in,  and  the 
Congress  of  Berlin,  49,  50,  52, 
63,  67,  151-152. 

Congress  of  Berlin  decrees  estab- 
lishment of  religious  liberty  in, 
61,  62,  63,  64,  65,  68,  70,  71, 
92,  122. 

status  of  Jews  in,  after  the  Con- 
gress of  Berlin,  72-73,  74,  79, 
92,  93,  135. 

United  States  and  religious  lib- 
erty in,  91. 

"  Serbien  und  das  Serbenvolk " 
(Kanitz),  ref.  to,  80  (note). 

"  Servia  and  the  Servians " 
(Stead),  ref.  to,  80  (note). 

Seward,   William   H.,   3. 

Shaftesbury,  Earl  of,  16. 
quoted,  112. 

Shaftesbury,  Lord.  See  Shaftes- 
bury, Earl  of. 

Shuvalov,  Count.  See  Schouvaloff, 
Count. 

Silberman,  Jacob,  14,  15. 

Simon,   Sir  John,  15   (note). 


Sincerus,  work  by,  ref.  to,  117,  121. 

129,  130,  131. 
alluded  to,  78  (note),  148. 

Singer,    B.,    30. 

"  Situation,    La    des    Israelites    en 
Turquie,   en  Serbie  et  en  Rou- 
maine "    (Loeb),   alluded  to,   3 
(note),  30. 
ref.  to,  116. 

"  Situation  of  the  Jews  in  Rou- 
mauia  since  the  Treaty  of  Ber- 
lin," ref.  to,  78  (note). 

Sloane,  work  by,  alluded  to,  80 
(note). 

Smith,  Charles  Emory,  U.  S.  Min- 
ister to  Russia,  113. 

Solomons,  Adolphus  S.,  12   (note). 

"  Souvenirs  ine"dits  du  Congr&s  de 
Berlin"  (Carathe"odory  Pa- 
sha), alluded  to,  48  (note). 

"  Souvenirs  lne"dits  du  Congres  de 
Berlin"  (Schouvaloff),  alluded 
to,  48  (note). 

Spear,  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel  T.,  quoted, 
5  (note). 

Stambler,  work  by,  alluded  to,  77 
(note),  78  (note),  94  (note)  ; 
ref.  to,  97  (note). 

Stanley,  Lord.     See  Derby,  Earl  of. 

"  Stateman's  Year  Book,"  ref.  to, 
149. 

Stead,  ref.  to  work  by,  80   (note). 

Stefan  III,  100. 

Stern,  Dr.  Adolf,  27,  82. 

work  by,  alluded  to,  9  (note),  12, 

22. 

ref.  to,  25    (note),  26   (note), 
correspondence    regarding    perse- 
cution  of   Jews    in    Roumania, 
36-38. 

Stern,  Myer,  39. 

Stocker,  75   (note),  76   (note). 

"  Story  of  the  Roumanian  Mission  " 
(Peixotto),  cited,  12. 

Straus,  Oscar  S.,  1  (note), 
work  by,  cited,  5  (note). 
ref.  to,  48   (note),  94   (note), 
alluded   to,    80    (note), 
and  the  Jewish  question  in  Rou- 
mania, 81,  82,  108-114. 

Stroock,  S.  M.,  ref.  to  work  by,  3 
(note). 


168 


American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 


"  Studies  in  Contemporary  Bi- 
ography"  (Bryce),  alluded  to. 
57  (note). 

"  Studies  in  International  Law " 
(Holland),  alluded  to,  49 
(note). 

Sturdza,  ref.  to  work  by,   139. 

Suliotis,   M.,   quoted,   128,   150. 

Sumner,  Charles,  8,  11,  94. 

Switzerland,  foreign  governments 
insist  on  equality  for  their 
Jewish  subjects  In,  3  and 
(note),  4  (note). 

and   the   Jewish    question    in   the 
Balkan  States,  102. 

"  Switzerland  and  American  Jews  " 
(Stroock),  ref.  to,  3  (note). 

Taft,  President  William  H.,  and 
the  Jewish  question  in  Rou- 
mania,  84. 

"  Tagebuchblatter "  (Busch),  al- 
luded to,  47  (note),  56  (note). 

Taylor,  Bayard,  42. 

"  Termination  of  the  Treaty  be- 
tween the  United  States  and 
Russia,"  alluded  to,  6  (note). 

"  Theory  of  Persecution "  (Pol- 
lock), alluded  to,  7  (note). 

Thidan,  German  consul  at  Bucha- 
rest, 19. 

"  Times,  The,"  of  London,  ref.  to, 
60  (note). 

Toize",  M.,  51. 

"  Trait6  de  Berlin  annot£  et  corn- 
men  te" "  (Brunswik),  alluded 
to,  48  (note). 

"  Treaty  of  1832  with  Russia,"  al- 
luded to,  6  (note). 

Tripoli,  5  (note). 

Turkey,  demands  equality  of  treat- 
ment for  Ottoman  Jews  from 
Austria,  4  (note), 
and  the  Jewish  question  in  Rou- 
mania  and  the  Balkan  States, 
21,  31,  81,  115,  134. 
position  of  non-Musselman  sub- 
jects in,  31,  34,  35,  39,  53 
(note)-54  (note),  55  (note), 
57  (note),  58,  59  and  (note), 
60  (note),  61,  66,  67-68,  84, 
85,  87,  102,  103,  105,  106,  149, 
150. 


religious  liberty  in,  and  the  Con- 
gress of  Berlin,  53  (note) -54 
(note),  55  (note),  57  (note), 
58,  59  and  (note),  60,  61, 
74. 

acquiesces  to  independence  of 
Serbia,  61-62. 

champions  religious  liberty  at  the 

Congress  of  Berlin,  64,  67,  108. 

Twiss,   ref.  to  work  by,   48    (note). 

United  States,  the  protagonist  of 
religious  liberty,  ix,  1,  3,  4-5 
and  (note),  6  and  (note),  7 
(note),  8,  13,  18,  20,  30,  42, 
80,  86,  88,  89,  94,  102,  112- 
113,  132. 

and  the  Jewish  question  in  Rou- 
mania  and  the  Balkan  States, 
1,  2,  3,  6,  7-14.  15-21,  32-34, 
41,  42,  55  (note),  75,  79,  80- 
93,  110,  111-114,  133-134,  135, 
136,  149. 

secures  equality  of  rights  for 
Jews  in  Switzerland,  3. 

aids  persecuted  Jews  of  Damas- 
cus, 4,  88. 

insisting  on  equal  treatment  of 
all  citizens  abroad,  abrogates 
treaty  with  Russia,  6  (note). 

diplomatic  correspondence  of,  re- 
lating to  Jews  in  the  Balkan 
States,  13,  18,  19-20,  21,  30, 
31,  32-34,  36-38,  41,  42,  71-72, 
80,  112-113,  133-134,  149. 

aids  persecuted  Jews  of  Morocco, 
88. 

pleads  for  persecuted  Jews  at  the 
Algeciras  Conference,  88,  89. 

urges  establishment  of  religious 
liberty  in  the  Balkan  States  at 
the  Conference  of  Bucharest, 
92-93. 

United  States  House  of  Representa- 
tives.    See  Congress. 
United    States    Senate.      See    Con- 
gress. 

U.  S.  Senate  Document,  1872,  42d 
Congress,  2d  Session,  No.  75, 
ref.  to,  17  (note). 

"  U.  S.  Senate  Document  No.  611, 
63d  Congress,.  2d  Session," 
cited,  83  (note). 


Index. 


169 


U.  S.  Senate  Hearings  before  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Relations  on 
"Treaty  of  1832,"  alluded  to, 
6  (note). 

"  Unveiling  and  Consecration  of 
the  John  Hay  Memorial  Win- 
dow at  the  Temple  of  the  Re- 
form Congregation  Keneseth 
Israel,  Philadelphia,"  80 
(note). 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  4. 
Veneziani,    F.,    30,   39,   47,   50. 
Vilcova,    Roumania,    19. 
von  Beust,  Count,  45   (note). 

Waddington,  Mary  King,  ref.  to 
work  by,  49  (note),  53  (note). 

Waddington,  William  Henry,  53 
and  (note),  54  (note),  55 
(note),  56,  57,  58,  59,  60,  62, 
63,  64,  65,  66,  70,  72,  76 
(note),  121,  151. 

Wahrmann,   Moritz,   44. 

Wallachia,  the  Jewish  question  in, 
20,  102-103,  104,  112,  117-118, 
138,  139,  151. 

"  Was  the  Earl  of  Beaconsfleld  a 
Representative  Jew?"  (Laza- 
rus), ref.  to,  57  (note). 

Washburne,  Elihu  B.,  20,  21,  30. 

Washington,    [George],    5    (note). 

Watchorn,  Robert,  report  of,  on  im- 
migration of  Roumanian  Jews 
to  the  United  States,  109,  111. 


Wertheimer,    Ritter    Josef    von,    12 

(note),    22. 

"  What  Shall  We  Do  with  Our  Im- 
migrants?" (Peixptto),  quoted. 

13-14. 
Wheaton,     ref.     to     work     by,     94 

(note). 
White,     Andrew     D.,     quoted,     43 

(note) -44    (note). 
White,    Sir   William,    124,   142. 
Whitman,    S.,  work  by,   alluded   to, 

3  (note). 
Wiernik,    [Peter],   ref.   to  work  by, 

80   (note). 
William    I,    Emperor    of    Germany, 

56    (note),   75  and    (note),   76 

(note). 
Wilson,     President    Woodrow,     and 

the    Jewish    question    in    Rou- 
mania, 84. 
Winchester,  Mr.,  8. 
Wolf,    Lucien,    ref.    to,    47    (note), 

56   (note). 

alluded  to,   57    (note). 
Wolf,    Simon,    7,    8,   9,    11,    12    and 

(note),  13,  21,  24,  33,  81. 
See    also    Kohler,    Max    J.,    and 

Wolf,    Simon. 

Young,  J.  R.,  ref.  to  work  by,  49 
(note). 

"  Zeitschrift  fur  Demographie  und 
Statistik  der  Juden,"  ref.  to, 
79  (note). 


13 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

JUL06I992 


NOV  0  1 


347234 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


